HON.  JOHN  M.  READ, 


OX  THE 

POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  THE  TERRITORIES, 


AND  IN  FAVOR  OF 


FREE  KANSAS,  FREE  WHITE  LABOR, 


AND  OF 


FREMONT  AND  DAYTON. 


DELIVERED  ON 


TUESDAY  EVENING,  SEPTEMBER  30,  1856, 


PHILADELPHIA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED  BY  C.  SIIERMAY  &  SOK 
'  1856. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from  - 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/speechofhonjohnm00read_0 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  JOHN  M.  READ. 


Fellow  Citizens  : — Was  the  Missouri  Compromise  constitu¬ 
tional  ?  Was  its  nullification  a  breach  of  national  faith  and  a 
violation  of  national  honor  ?  Is  not  its  restoration  called  for  by 
the  truest  interests  of  humanity  and  freedom  ?  Shall  Kansas  be 
slave  or  free  ? 

These  are  the  true  issues  involved  in  our  coming  elections,  and 
can  there  be  a  doubt  that  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  will  enlist 
in  the  great  army  of  freedom  to  carry  free  soil,  free  speech,  a 
free  press,  and  free  labor  into  invaded  and  subjugated  Kansas  ? 
No  man  can  speak,  write,  or  even  think  his  true  opinions  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  Kansas  as  it  is  now  governed,  by  laws 
made  by  a  legislature,  elected  not  by  the  resident  voters  of  Kan¬ 
sas,  but  by  an  army  of  Border  Ruffians  from  Missouri,  and  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  President  and  Army  of  the  United  States,  whose 
bayonets  are  used  to  stab  freedom  to  the  heart. 

These  questions,  the  greatest  that  have  occurred  since  the 
formation  of  the  Constitution,  should  be^  discussed  calmly,  and 
temperately,  our  object  being  to  convince  all  dispassionate  men 
of  all  parties  that  we  are  right. 

We  have  on  our  side,  the  Constitution  and  its  uniform  con¬ 
struction  by  its  framers,  the  patriots  and  sages  of  the  Revolution 
— by  the  father  of  his  country — by  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence — and  by  all  the  Constitutional  lawyers  and 
statesmen  of  the  Union.  The  proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the 
history  of  the  Constitution,  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  of  the 
Compromise  of  1820,  and  of  the  uniform  practice  under  them 
by  all  departments  of  the  government. 


4 


It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  all  our  revolutionary  patriots 
were  in  favor  of  freedom,  and  opposed  to  slavery  as  “  a  great 
political  and  moral  evil.”  Mr.  Jefferson  looked  forward  to  a 
gradual  emancipation  in  the  States  by  State  authority.  I 
think,”  said  he,  ‘‘ a  change  is  already  perceptible  since  the  origin 
of  the  present  revolution.  The  spirit  of  the  master  is  abating, 
that  of  the  slave  is  rising  from  the  dust,  his  condition  mollifying, 
the  way,  I  hope,  preparing,  under  the  auspices  of  Heaven,  for  a 
total  emancipation,  and  that  this  is  disposed  in  the  order  of 
events  to  be  with  the  consent  of  the  masters  rather  than  by  their 
extirpation.” 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  were  signed  by  New  Jersey, 
Delaware,  and  Maryland,  with  great  hesitation,  and  by  the  last 
not  until  Congress  had  requested,  and  two  States  had  actually 
ceded  their  claims  to  Western  Territory  for  the  benefit  of  the 
United  States. 

The  resolution  of  the  10th  of  October,  1780,  contemplated 
the  disposal  by  Congress  of  the  unappropriated  lands  ceded  to 
the  United  States,  and  their  settlement  and  formation  into  dis¬ 
tinct  republican  States.  The  several  cessions  were  made  in  due 
form  by  the  States  of  New  York,  Virginia,  Massachusetts,  and 
Connecticut.  The  claims  of  these  States  were  founded  originally 
on  the  terms  of  their  respective  charters,  and  included  not  only 
the  soil  and  the  right  of  pre-emption  but  as  complete  a  jurisdic¬ 
tion  and  right  of  sovereignty  over  the  Territory  and  its  inhabi¬ 
tants,  as  if  it  had  been  in  the  most  densely  populated  part  of 
their  Atlantic  possessions. 

When,  therefore,  these  States,  and  particularly  Virginia, 
executed  their  deeds  of  cession,  they  parted  with  the  soil,  the 
right  of  pre-emption,  and  the  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction,  which 
they  claimed  to  exercise  within  their  charter  limits,  and  the 
whole  vested  in  the  United  States  of  America.  No  one  could 
sell  the  lands,  or  govern  the  people  in  those  Territories,  but  their 
recognized  organ,  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  and  we 
accordingly  find  that  both  objects  were  separately  the  subjects 
of  distinct  Congressional  legislation. 

-  The  government  of  the  people  was  the  first  object,  and  the 
preparation  of  the  ceded  Territories  for  their  erection  into  Re- 


5 


publican  States,  wliicb  should  become  sovereign  members  of  the 
Confederacy.  Accordingly,  on  the  19th  of  April,  1784,  Congress 
took  into  consideration  the  report  of  a  committee,  consisting  of 
Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Chase,  and  Mr.  Howell,  to  whom  was  re¬ 
committed  their  report  of  a  plan  for  the  temporary  government 
of  the  Western  Territory.  A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Spaight, 
of  North  Carolina,  seconded  by  a  delegate  from  South  Carolina, 
to  strike  out  this  paragraph : 

“  Thaty  after  the  year  1800,  of  the  Chrutian  era^  there  shall 
he  neither  Slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude^  in  any  of  the 
said  States,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  convicted  to  have  been  personally  guilty.’' 

It  was  struck  out ;  all  the  States  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon’s 
line  voting  for  it,  as  well  as  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  Mr.  Williamson  (of 
North  Carolina).  After  some  other  amendments,  tlie  Resolution 
was  adopted  on  the  23d  of  April.  This  Report,  and  particularly 
this  provision  against  the  existence  of  Slavery  in  the  new  States, 
was  understood  to  be  the  production  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 

This  Resolution  provided  for  the  temporary  government  of  the 
Northwestern  Territory,  and  prescribed  the  size  of  the  States 
and  the  time  and  manner  of  their  admission,  and  the  principles 
upon  which  both  the  temporary  and  permanent  governments 
should  be  established.  It  is  clear  that  neither  Mr.  Jefferson, 
nor  any  member  of  that  Congress,  doubted  the  powder  of  that 
body  to  acquire  territory  and  to  legislate  for  it  and  its  peo¬ 
ple,  by  providing,  first,  a  temporary  government,  and,  second¬ 
ly,  for  the  future  formation  of  independent  sovereign  States, 
which  should  be  admitted  into  the  Confederacy  ;  and,  still  fur¬ 
ther,  it  is  equally  clear,  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  a  real  majority 
of  the  States,  included  the  powder  to  prohibit  Slavery,  as  within 
their  legitimate  authority.  Congress,  having  thus  provided  a 
plan  for  the  temporary  and  permanent  government  of  the  Ter¬ 
ritory,  next  directed  their  attention  to  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands  within  it,  to  which  the  Indian  titles  had  been  extinguished. 

On  the  7th  May,  1784,  a  Committee,  of  which  Mr.  Jefferson 
(who  had  been  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Plan  for 
the  Government  of  the  Territories)  was  chairman,  reported  ^‘An 
ordinance  for  ascertaining  the  mode  of  locating  and  disposing  of 


6 


lands  in  the  Western  Territory,  and  for  other  purposes  therein 
mentioned.”  This  ordinance,  as  amended,  passed  on  the  20th 
May,  1785,  and  formed  the  groundwork  of  the  present  land  laws 
of  the  United  States. 

The  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  therefore,  exercised  sepa¬ 
rately  the  two  distinct  branches  of  their  sovereign  power  over 
the  Western  Territory.  1st.  By  organizing  governments  for  the 
people.  2d.  By  adopting  a  plan  or  ordinance  for  disposing  of 
the  lands  in  said  territory. 

It  was,  however,  deemed  expedient  to  repeal  the  Resolve  of 
the  23d  April,  1784,  which  was  accordingly  done  by  Congress, 
who,  on  the  13th  July,  1787,  passed  the  celebrated  ordinance 
for  the  Government  of  the  Territory  of  the  United  States  north¬ 
west  of  the  river  Ohio. 

It  regulated  the  descent  of  intestate  estates  in  the  territory, 
and  also  devises  by  will  and  the  conveyance  of  real  estate,  with 
the  mode  of  proof,  acknowledgment,  and  record,  and  established 
also  the  transfer  of  personal  property  by  delivery,  saving  to  the 
French  and  Canadian  inhabitants  and  other  settlers  of  the  Kas- 
kaskias.  Saint  Vincents,  and  the  neighboring  villages,  who  had 
theretofore  professed  themselves  citizens  of  Virginia,  their  laws 
and  customs  then  in  force  relative  to  the  descent  and  conveyance 
of  property. 

It  then  gave  a  temporary  government  to  the  Territory  or  Dis¬ 
trict,  consisting  of  a  Governor,  Secretary,  and  three  Judges, 
the  Governor  and  Judges  being  invested  with  legislative  power 
until  the  organization  of  a  General  Assembly,  which  was  to  con¬ 
sist  of  the  Governor,  a  Legislative  Council,  appointed  by  Con¬ 
gress  from  the  nominations  made  by  the  Representatives,  and  a 
House  of  Representatives,  which  Council  and  House  were  autho¬ 
rized,  by  joint  ballot,  to  elect  a  Delegate  to  Congress,  who  was 
to  have  a  seat  with  the  right  of  debating,  but  not  of  voting,  during 
this  temporary  government. 

The  second  or  permanent  part  of  the  ordinance  established 
the  principles  in  the  shape  of  articles,  which  were  six  in  number, 
by  which  both  the  temporary  and  permanent  governments  should 
be  forever  regulated,  and  provided  for  the  formation  of  not  less 
than  three,  nor  more  than  five.  States  in  the  Territory,  and  their 


admission  into  the  Union  ;  provided,  the  constitution  and  govern¬ 
ment  to  be  formed  by  such  States  should  be  Republican,  and  in 
conformity  to  the  principles  contained  in  the  said  articles. 

The  sixth  of  these  articles,  which  applied  expressly  to  the 
territory,  whether  under  the  temporary  or  permanent  form  of 
government,  declared  the  freedom  of  the  soil  hy  pi'ohibiting  for¬ 
ever  the  existence  of  slavery  within  this  favored  region — a  pro¬ 
vision  which  was  merely  an  enlargement  of  Mr,  Jefferson's 
favorite  proposition  in  the  Congress  of  1784. 

This  article,  which  is  one  of  those  declared  to  be  unalterable, 
except  by  common  consent,  is  in  these  words : 

“There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in 
the  said  territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted ;  provided 
always,  that  any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom 
labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  one  of  the  original 
States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed  and  conveyed 
to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid.” 

This  ordinance  had  been  the  subject  of  discussion  in  Congress 
ten  months  before  its  adoption.  Mr.  Gorham,  Mr.  King,  Mr. 
Madison,  and  Mr.  Butler,  who  were  members  of  the  Federal  Con¬ 
vention,  were  also  delegates  in/  the  Congress  which  sat  in  New” 
York.  Mr.  Madison  was  present  in  Congress  whilst  this  ordi¬ 
nance  was  on  second  reading,  and  w^e  find  his  name  on  the 
Journal,  on  the  22d  April,  1787,  and  on  the  next  day  he  wrote 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  from  New  York,  in  which  he  says, 
“  the  present  deliberations  of  Congress  turn  on^  firsts  the  sale  of 
the  Western  lands ;  secondly^  the  government  of  the  Western 
settlements  within  the  Federal  domain," 

On  the  9th  May,  Congress  proceeded  in  the  second  reading  of 
the  Ordinance,  and  it  was  ordered  to  be  transcribed,  and  the 
next  day  was  assigned  for  a  third  reading.  On  the  10th  May, 
when  it  came  up  in  order,  it  was  postponed.  Messrs.  Gorham  and 
King  were  then  present,  and  voting,  as  appears  by  the  Journal. 
From  the  11th  May  to  the  6th  July,  Congress  only  met  and 
adjourned,  there  not  being  a  quorum ;  and  on  the  11th  July, 
the  Committee  to  whom  it  had  been  referred,  reported  the  Ordi- 


8 


nance,  and  it  was  read  a  first  time  on  the  12th,  and  a  third  time 
on  the  13tb. 

The  passage  of  this  Ordinance  is  mentioned  in  the  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  Packet  of  the  21st  July,  1787,  published  in  Philadelphia, 
by  John  Dunlap  and  David  0.  Claypoole,  and  the  whole  appeared 
at  length  in  the  August  number  of  Matthew  Carey’s  American 
Museum  for  that  year. 

The  Federal  Convention  adjourned  on  the  26th  July  until 
Monday,  the  6th  August,  and  on  Thursday,  the  2d  August,  Mr. 
Pierce  Butler  appeared  in  Congress,  in  New  York,  and  produced 
his  credentials  as  a  delegate  from  South  Carolina. 

On  the  28th  August,  in  the  Federal  Convention,  Mr.  Butler 
and  Mr.  Pinckney  moved,  to  require  fugitive  slaves  and  servants 
to  he  delivered  up  like  criminals.  This  was  opposed,  because  it 
would  oblige  the  Executives  of  the  States  to  do  it  at  the  public 
expense,  and  the  proposition  was  withdrawn.  On  the  next  day 
Mr.  Butler  moved  a  proposition  which  was  evidently  taken  from 
the  sixth  article  of  the  Ordinance  of  the  13th  July,  and  which 
in  more  compact  phraseology  forms  the  third  clause  of  the  second 
section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention  on  the  17th  Sep¬ 
tember,  Mr.  Giorham,  Mr.  King,  Mr.  Butler,  and  Mr.  Madison, 
,  took  their  seats  again  in  Congress,  at  New  York,  and  we  find  the 
names  of  the  three  first  named  gentlemen  on  the  Journal,  on  the 
24th  September,  and  on  the  next  day  that  of  Mr.  Madison  also, 
who,  on  the  30th,  wrote  to  General  Washington  respecting  the 
feelings  of  Congress,  and  of  the  people,  in  relation  to  the  act  of 
the  Convention.  On  the  5th  of  October,  General  St.  Clair  was 
elected  Governor,  and  Winthrop  Sargent  Secretary  of  the  North¬ 
western  Territory. 

By  a  convention  between  the  States  of  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  concluded  at  Beaufort,  on  the  28th  of  April,  1787, 
South  Carolina  ceded  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  all  the  right,  title, 
and  claim,  which  the  said  State  of  South  Carolina  had  to  the 
government,  sovereignty,  and  jurisdiction  in  and  over  the  lands, 
west  of  the  most  northern  branch  of  the  Tugaloo  River,  and  also 
the  right  of  pre-emption  of  the  soil  from  the  native  Indians,  and 
all  other  the  estate,  property,  and  claim  which  the  State  of  South 


9 


\ 

Carolina  had  in  or  to  the  said  lands,  and  on  the  9th  August,  in 
the  same  year,  made  a  cession  of  soil  and  jurisdiction  to  the 
United  States,  of  what  was  apparently  already  ceded  to  Georgia. 

At  the  time  therefore  of  framing  the  Constitution,  the  settled 
policy  of  the  United  States  was  clearly  and  distinctly  defined  and 
known  to  all  the  members  of  the  Federal  Convention.  It  was — 

1.  To  dispose  of  the  public  lands;  this  was  the  subject  of  a 
separate  system,  which  has  always  been  kept  by  itself,  and  forms 
the  business  of  a  distinct  department  of  the  Government. 

2.  To  legislate  for  and  to  form  temporary  or  Territorial  Go¬ 
vernments,  for  the  Territory  belonging  to  the  United  States. 

3.  To  provide  for  the  admission  of  new  States. 

All  these  powers  had  been  exercised,  without  question,  by  Con¬ 
gress,  and  we  have  the  highest  authority  for  saying,  that  the 
power  of  acquiring  territory,  necessarily  brings  with  it  the  power 
of  legislation.  Whilst  in  its  territorial  form  it  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  doubted  that  such  a  power  would  exist  without  any 
positive  provision  in  the  Constitution. 

A  provision  was  therefore  made  for  the  admission  of  the  new 
States,  but  in  the  original  report  the  Territories  were  entirely 
omitted. 

Upon  a  suggestion,  however,  of  Mr.  Carroll  of  Maryland,  who 
was  afraid  that  the  claims  of  the  United  States  to  the  Western 
Territory  might  be  denied,  if  not  mentioned  in  the  Constitution, 
that  which  now  forms  the  second  clause  of  the  third  section  of 
the  fourth  article  was  adopted. 

The  whole  third  section  refers  1.  To  the  admission  of  new 
States.  2.  To  the  disposal  of  the  public  lands,  which  is  included 
in  the  words,  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  the 
Territory^  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States,”  the 
words  being  the  same  as  those  used  in  the  Land  Ordinance  of  the 
20th  May,  1785,  which  says.  The  Territory  ceded  “shall  he  dis¬ 
posed  of  in  the  following  manner.”  3.  To  the  legislation  for  the 
temporary  government  of  the  Territories  which  are  provided  for 
in  the  words  “  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  Territory  or  other  property 
belonging  to  the  United  States,”  using  the  word  Territory  in  its 
largest  sense  as  understood  in  the  Deeds  of  Cession  and  in  the 


10 


Ordinance  of  IStli  July,  1787.  This  means  Jurisdiction  and 
Sovereignty,  and  confers  upon  or  recognizes  in  Congress  the  same 
power  that  had  been  exercised  by  the  old  Congress. 

This  is  made  more  evident  when  we  refer  to  the  concluding 
words  in  this  clause,  ‘‘and  nothing  in  this  constitution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States  or  of 
any  particular  States.”  Now  this  means  neither  more  nor  less 
than  the  claims  of  either  to  the  jurisdiction,  soil,  and  sovereignty 
of  the  Western  country. 

The  word  Territory,  in  its  largest  sense,  includes  lands,  soil, 
jurisdiction,  and  sovereignty,  and  as  the  power  to  sell  includes 
the  lesser  power  to  mortgage,  so  the  powder  to  dispose  of  territory, 
supposing  it  used  in  its  most  extended  meaning,  includes  the 
power  to  sell  the  public  lands  agreeably  to  the  present  system, 
which  commenced  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

The  cession  of  Virginia  included  in  it  Lake  Michigan,  an  in¬ 
land  sea,  half  of  Lake  Erie,  Huron,  and  Superior,  and  a  tract  of 
country  equal  to  many  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  old  w’orld.  How 
absurd,  then,  is  it  at  this  day  to  apply  to  a  constitution  for  an 
empire,  a  construction  which  would  be  rejected,  not  simply  by 
statesmen  of  enlarged  intellect,  but  by  the  humblest  lawyer  that 
ever  practised  before  a  justice  of  the  peace. 

The  words  “  territory  and  territories,” — as  used  in  the  original 
charters  of  the  various  Colonies,  in  the  public  documents  preced¬ 
ing  and  succeeding  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  in  the  cessions 
from  the  various  States,  and  in  the  contemporaneous  legislation 
of  the  old  Congress, — included  soil,  land,  and  water  jurisdiction, 
domain,  and  sovereignty.  The  same  meaning  has  been  attached 
to  them  in  our  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  in  the  Acts  of  Con¬ 
gress,  and  even  in  the  celebrated  Resolution  for  the  conditional 
admission  of  Texas,  and  in  some  cases  they  have  been  used  to 
designate  the  whole  of  the  United  States,  whether  States  or 
Territories. 

The  original  title  to  a  new  country  is  founded  on  the  right  of 
discovery,  and  it  confers  upon  the  nation  discovering  it  the  sove¬ 
reignty  and  jurisdiction,  with  the  right  of  pre-emption  of  the 
soil  from  its  aboriginal  inhabitants.  This  right  belongs  to  it  in 
its  sovereign  capacity,  which  enables  it  to  extinguish  the  Indian 


11 


title,  and  to  perfect  its  dominion  over  the  soil,  and  dispose  of  it 
according  to  its  own  good  pleasure. 

In  the  new  Territories,  therefore,  of  America,  discovery  and 
the  purchase  of  the  Indian  title,  vested  in  the  Government  the 
soil,  jurisdiction,  and  sovereignty  of  the  country,  and,  of  course, 
of  its  inhabitants. 

In  the  second  charter  of  Virginia,  in  1609,  the  wmrds  used, 
are  “  lands,  countries,  and  territories,”  and  in  the  second  charter 
of  Carolina,  in  1677,  the  grant  is  of  “  all  that  province,  territo¬ 
ry,  or  tract  of  land,”  and  “together  with  all  and  singular  the 
ports,  harbors,  hays,  rivers,  and  inlets,  belonging  unto  the  Pro¬ 
vince  or  Territory  aforesaid  and  in  the  charter  of  the  Province 
of  Massachusetts,  of  1691,  the  words  Province  and  Territory  are 
used  as  synonymous,  and,  in  speaking  of  it,  it  is  called  by  Wil¬ 
liam  and  Mary  “  our  said  Province  or  Territory.” 

In  the  Georgia  charter,  in  1732,  the  grant  w^as  of  “all  those 
lands,  countries,  and  territories;”  and  the  7th  article  of  the  de¬ 
finitive  Treaty  of  Peace  between  Great  Britain,  Prance,  and 
-Spain,  concluded  at  Paris  on  the  10th  of  February,  1763,  speaks 
of  “the  limits  of  the  British  and  French  Territories  on  the  Con¬ 
tinent  of  America,”  which  are  irrevocably  fixed  by  that  treaty. 

By  the  9th  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  federal  courts  were 
directed  to  be  constituted  to  settle  disputes  between  two  or  more 
States,  concerning  boundary,  jurisdiction,  or  any  other  cause 
whatever ;  each  judge  of  such  courts  was  to  be  sworn,  and  it 
was  provided,  that  “  no  State  shall  he  deprived  of  territory  for 
the  benefit  of  the  United  States U  All  controversies,  concerning 
the  private  right  of  soil,  claimed  under  different  grants  of  tw^o  or 
more  States,  whose  jurisdiction,  as  they  may  respect  such  lands, 
had  been  adjusted,  were  to  be  finally  determined,  as  near  as 
might  be,  in  the  same  manner  as  was  prescribed  for  deciding 
disputes  concerning  Territorial  jurisdiction  between  different 
States. 

In  the  provisional  articles  of  Peace  of  the  30th  of  November, 
1782,  the  King  of  Great  Britain  acknowledged  the  independence 
of  the  United  States,  and  relinquished  all  claims  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  propriety,  and  Territorial  rights  of  the  same,  and  every 
part  thereof. 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILUNOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  UR6ANA  CHAMPAIGN 


12 


In  Jay’s  Treaty,  in  the  9th  article,  the  words  Territories  of 
the  United  States,”  are  used  in  the  largest  sense,  comprehending 
both  States  and  Territories ;  as  also  in  the  14th  article,  which 
secures  a  reciprocal  and  perfect  liberty  of  navigation  and  com¬ 
merce  between  all  the  dominions  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain 
in  Europe  and  the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 

The  15th  and  16th  Articles  use  the  word  territories  in  the 
same  extensive  sense,  and  the  13th  relates  to  the  admission  of 
American  vessels  into  the  ports  and  harbors  of  the  “  British 
territories  in  the  East  Indies.” 

The  same  extended  meaning  of  territory  and  territories  is  to 
be  found  in  the  laws  and  in  other  treaties  of  the  United  States, 
as  in  the  Louisiana  treaty,  by  which  France  ceded  to  the  United 
States,  forever  and  in  full  sovereignty f  the  Territory  of 
Louisiana;  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  and  in  the  Convention  of  1815, 
“to  regulate  the  commerce  between  the  territories  of  the  United 
States  and  of  his  Britannic  Majesty;”  in  the  Convention  with  Great 
Britain  of  20th  October,  1818,  which  left  open  for  ten  years  the 
country  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  to  the  vessels,  citizens,  and 
subjects  of  the  two  powers  ;  in  the  treaty  of  1819,  by  which 
the  King  of  Spain  ceded  to  the  United  States,  the  territories  of 
East  and  West  Florida,  and  all  his  right  to  the  territories  east 
and  north  of  a  line  fixed  by  the  treaty,  and  by  which  we  ceded 
the  Territory  of  Texas  to  Spain — in  the  8th  section  of  the  Mis¬ 
souri  Act  of  1820 ;  and  in  the  Convention  with  Great  Britain,  of 
the  6th  August,  1827,  “  with  respect  to  the  territory  on  the 
northwest  coast  of  America,  west  of  the  Stony  or  Bocky  Moun¬ 
tains  ;”  in  the  Convention  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Republic  of  Texas,  of  the  25th  April,  1838  ;  in  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  of  the  9th  August,  1842 ;  in  the  joint  reso¬ 
lutions  for  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States ;  and  lastly,  in 
the  celebrated  treaty  of  the  15th  June,  1846,  which  was  to  ter¬ 
minate  “  the  state  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  which  had  hitherto 
prevailed  respecting  the  sovereignty  and  government  of  the  ter¬ 
ritory  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America,  lying  westward  of  the 
Rocky  or  Stony  Mountains.” 

So  the  words  “  rules  and  regulations”  in  the  language  of  that 
day,  included  all  ordinary  acts  of  legislation,  as  well  as  the 


13 


framing  of  temporary  governments  for  the  people  of  the  territo¬ 
ries.  How  much  has  there  been  done  for  the  prosperity  and 
happiness  of  our  beloved  country  under  the  words,  “  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and 
among  the  several  States  and  with  the  Indian  tribes.” 

This  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  w^as  to  be 
carried  into  execution  by  Congress  agreeably  to  the  first  article 
of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  clear  that  the  legislative  body  of  the  United  States,  the 
Congress,  has  the  power  to  govern  the  territories,  either  directly 
or  by  the  intervention  of  a  territorial  form  of  government, 
whether  that  be  of  the  first  or  second  grade,  and  this  depends 
not  only  upon  necessity  but  upon  the  express  terms  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  which  leaves  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  upon  the  subject. 
Over  the  territories  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution  the 
power  of  Congress  is  supreme,  and  all  territorial  legislation  is 
subordinate  to  it.  The  territories  belong  to  the  United  States, 
and  its  supreme  legislature,  the  Congress,  has  no  restrictions 
upon  the  legislation,  and  it  can  and  it  has,  whenever  it  'pleased, 
p)rohihited  slavery,  which  is  a  mere  municipal  institution,  within 
their  borders.  What  other  legislative  body  has  any  power 
within  their  limits  ?  Certainly  not  the  Legislature  of  any  State, 
for  the  present  Territories,  which  are  all  west  of  the  Mississippi, 
never  belonged  to  any  State  in  the  Union,  but  are  all  acquisi¬ 
tions  from  foreign  powers.  If  the  Legislature  of  one  State  has 
such  power,  then  the  Legislatures  of  all  the  other  States  have  the 
same  power,  and,  of  course,  the  Territories  would  be  subjected 
to  the  disjointed  legislation  of  sixteen  free  and  fifteen  slave 
States.  This  is  too  gross  an  absurdity  to  need  refutation,  and 
it  is  equally  absurd  to  say  that  each  man  carries  with  him  the 
laws  of  his  own  State,  for  that  would  be  giving  to  a  citizen  a 
power  which  is  denied  to  the  Legislature  of  his  State,  and  to  the 
State  itself. 

These  positions  are  entirely  supported  by  the  whole  legislation 
of  Congress  from  1789  to  the  Nebraska-Kansas  Act.  On  the 
7th  August,  1789,  Congress  passed  an  act  to  provide  for  the 
government  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  which, 


14 


after  reciting  that  in  order  that  the  Ordinance  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled,  for  the  government  of  the  territory 
northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  may  continue  to  have  full  effect,  it 
is  requisite  that  certain  provisions  should  he  made,  so  as  to  adapt 
the  same  to  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  enacted 
that  all  communications  which  were  directed  to  he  made  by  the 
Governor  to  Congress  or  their  officers,  should  he  made  to  the 
President,  and  that  the  officers  which,  by  the  ordinance,  were  to 
be  appointed  by  Congress,  should  be  appointed  by  the  President, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  in  cases 
where  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  might,  by  the 
ordinance,  revoke  any  commission  or  remove  from  any  office,  the 
President  was  to  have  the  same  powers  of  revocation  and  re¬ 
moval  ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  death,  removal,  resignation,  or  neces¬ 
sary  absence  of  the  Governor,  the  Secretary  was  to  perform  all  his 
duties  during  the  vacancy.  This  act  was  necessary  in  order  to 
transfer  the  Executive  powers,  which  had  been  exercised  by  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation,  to  the  Chief  Magistrate,  to  whom 
they  were  confided  by  the  new  Constitution.  This  is  a  clear^ 
unqualified  recognition  and  ratification  of  the  Ordinance  in  its 
double  character  of  a  law  and  a  compact,  and  was  made  by  a 
Congress  of  which  Mr.  Madison  and  other  delegates  in  the  late 
federal  Convention  were  members. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  not  the  word  slave 
in  it — our  ancestors  would  have  been  ashamed  to  send  it  down  to 
posterity  as  a  slave  document,  and  there  are  but  five  places  in 
the  Constitution  in  which  there  is  any  allusion  to  this  class  of 
persons. 

1.  In  the  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  first  article, 

Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 

the  several  States  ^Yh.lch.  maybe  included  in  this  Union  according 
to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding 
to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to 
service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed, 
three-fifths  of  all  other  persons.'' 

2.  In  the  first  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article, 
which  is  obsolete,  “  The  migration  or  importation  of  siich  persons 
as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit 


15 


shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  im¬ 
posed  on  such  importation  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
person.’' 

3.  The  fourth  clause  of  the  same  section — ‘‘No  capitation  or 
other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid  unless  in  proportion  to  the  census 
or  enumeration  hereinbefore  directed  to  be  taken,”  referring  to 
the  third  clause  of  the  second  section  already  quoted. 

4.  The  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article — 
“No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law 
or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor, 
but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due.” 

5.  The  fifth  article  relates  to  amendments,  and  has  a  proviso 
w’hich  is  now  obsolete — “  Provided  that  no  amendment  which  may 
be  made  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight, 
shall  in  any  manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth  clauses  in  the 
ninth  section  of  the  first  article.” 

The  2d  and  5th  of  these  paragraphs  are  obsolete,  but  in  all 
and  every  of  them'  slaves  are  spoken  of  as  persons,  not  things, 
as  human  beings,  and  not  as  chattels  or  property.  The  first  re¬ 
lates  to  the  census  and  enumeration,  for  representatives  and 
direct  taxation,  and  they  are  expressly  called  persons,  are  num¬ 
bered  and  classed  as  a  part  of  the  population  of  the  United  States, 
and  are  so  counted  and  considered,  in  relation  to  the  other  nations 
of  the  world.  For  the  purposes  only  of  representation  and  direct 
taxation,  having  no  voice  in  electing  the  one,  or  in  laying  the 
other,  they  are  rated  at  5  to  3,  in  order  to  reduce  the  power  of 
the  actual  voters  in  those  States  where  they  exist  by  force  of  muni¬ 
cipal  law  only.  The  3d  paragraph  is  inserted  from  a  wise  caution, 
for  if  a  capitation  or  poll  tax  had  been  laid  without  this  special 
reference  of  it  to  the  representative  numbers,  it  would  have  been 
imposed  upon  each  head  of  the  whole  population,  whether  white 
or  black,  slave  or  free,  as  a  direct  tax  means,  a  tax  assessed  on 
real  estate,  as  houses  and  lands. 

The  4th  paragraph,  which  has  been  the  subject  of  so  much 
controversy,  is  clear  upon  this  point.  The  fugitives  from  labor 
are  called  and  treated  as  persons  only,  and  this  provision  has 


16 


been  held  to  apply  to  white  apprentices  and  other  persons,  who 
are  not  called  slaves,  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Constitution  imposes  no  limit  upon 
the  power  of  Congress  over  slavery  in  the  Territories,  or  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  in  which  last,  it  is  expressly  empowered 
to  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever T 
But  there  have  been  repeated  recognitions  of  the  validity  of 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
and  every  new  State  within  the  original  limits  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  exception  of  Vermont  and  Kentucky,  has  been 
admitted  by  virtue  and  in  pursuance  of  its  provisions. 

The  cession  by  North  Carolina  of  her  Territory  west  of  the 
mountains  to  the  United  States,  on  the  25th  of  February,  1790, 
was  made  and  accepted  upon  the  express  condition,  that  all  the 
provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  should  be  extended  to  it  with 
the  exception  of  the  6th  article. 

On  the  24th  of  April,  1802,  by  articles  of  cession  and  agree¬ 
ment,  Georgia  ceded  to  the  United  States  all  her  right  to  the 
jurisdiction  and  soil  of  the  lands  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
United  States,  south  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  and  west  of  the 
Catahouchee,  upon  conditions  similar  to  those  in  the  cession  by 
North  Carolina.  Out  of  these  two  grants  have  arisen  three  Terri¬ 
torial  Governments,  all  administered  under  the  provisions  of  the 
great  Ordinance,  and  out  of  these  three  Territories,  three  States 
have  come  into  the  Union,  viz: — Tennessee,  admitted  on  1st 
June,  1796  ;  Mississippi,  on  the  10th  December,  1817,  and  Ala¬ 
bama,  on  the  14th  December,  1819.  In  their  Constitutions,  and 
in  the  acts  of  admission,  and  in  the  two  latter  cases  in  the  acts 
of  Congress  passed  preparatory  to  their  formation  of  State  Go¬ 
vernments,  the  Ordinance  of  1787  is  distinctly  recognized  and 
made  the  basis  of  both  Congressional  and  State  action. 

It  can  therefore  be  truly  and  emphatically  said  that  Tennessee^ 
Mississippi,  and  Alabama  are  States  by  virtue  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  and  that  they  should  be  the  very  last  in  the  Union  to  dis¬ 
pute  the  validity  or  constitutionality  of  this  celebrated  compact, 
to  which  they  oive  their  independent  existence  as  component 
members  of  the  confederacy . 

On  the  7th  May,  1800,  the  Northwestern  Territory  was  divided. 


17 


and  a  new  Territory  created  called  Indiana;  and  on  3d  February, 
1809,  the  Illinois  Territory  was  also  taken  from  Indiana.  All 
these  acts  of  Congress  established  governments  in  conformity  to 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  the  act  of  the  7th  August,  1789,  and 
extended  the  privileges  secured  to  the  people  of  the  Territory 
Northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  by  the  Ordinance,  to  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  these  respective  Territories. 

The  various  acts  enabling  the  people  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
Illinois  to  form  Constitutions  and  State  Governments  preparatory 
to  admission  into  the  Union — the  Constitutions,  thus  formed,  and 
the  acts  admitting  them,  recognized  all  the  principles  of  the 
Ordinance  in  their  fullest  extent. 

Ohio  was  admitted  into  the  Union  on  the  29th  November,  1802, 
Indiana  on  the  11th  December,  1816,  and  Illinois  on  the  8d 
December,  1818.  By  the  Act  of  19th  April,  1816  (which  is  a 
type  of  the  others),  providing  for  the  admission  of  Indiana,  it  is 
enacted  that  the  Constitution  and  State  Government,  ^‘whenever 
formed,  shall  be  republican  and  not  repugnant  to  those  articles 
of  the  Ordinance  of  the  13th  July,  1787,  which  are  declared  to 
be  irrevocable  between  the  original  States  and  the  people  and 
States  northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  excepting  so  much  of  the 
said  articles  as  relate  to  the  boundaries  of  the  States  therein 
formed.” 

And  by  the  preamble  of  the  resolution  of  Congress,  of  the  11th 
December,  1816,  admitting  Indiana,  it  is  expressly  declared  that 
the  ^‘Constitution  and  State  Government  so  formed  is  Republi¬ 
can  and  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  the  articles  of  com¬ 
pact  between  the  original  States  and  the  people  and  States  in  the 
Territory  northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  passed  on  the  thirteenth 
day  of  July,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven.” 

LOUISIANA  PURCHASE. 

We  are  now  to  trace  the  Congressional  history  of  the  legisla¬ 
tion  in  relation  to  the  Territory  of  Louisiana,  purchased  by  Mr. 
Jefferson  from  France. 

By  the  act  of  the  31st  October,  1803,  all  the  military,  civil, 
and  judicial  powers  exercised  by  the  officers  of  the  existing 
government  of  Louisiana  were  temporarily  vested  in  such  persons, 

2 


18 


and  to  be  exercised  in  such  manner  as  the  President  should  direct, 
for  maintaining  and  protecting  its  inhabitants  in  the  free  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  their  liberty,  property,  and  religion,  and  by  the  act  of 
the  26th,  March,  1804,  it  was  divided  into  two  Territories,  the 
southern  part  being  called  the  Territory  of  Orleans,  and  the 
residue  of  the  ceded  province  was  named  the  District  of  Louis¬ 
iana.  The  Orleans  Territory  had  a  Governor,  Secretary,  Judges, 
and  Legislative  Council,  whilst  the  District  of  Louisiana  was  to 
be  governed  by  the  Governor  and  the  Judges  of  the  Indiana 
Territory.  The  7th  section  contained  stringent  provisions  against 
the  importation  of  slaves  from  other  States,  except  under  parti¬ 
cular  restrictions,  and  all  slaves  imported  contrary  to  this  act 
were  entitled  to  their  freedom. 

On  the  2d  March,  1805,  an  act  further  providing  for  the  go¬ 
vernment  of  the  Territory  of  Orleans  was  passed,  by  which  the 
President  was  authorized  to  establish  wdthin  that  Territory  a 
government  in  all  respects  similar  (except  as  thereinafter  pro¬ 
vided)  to  that  then  exercised  in  the  Mississippi  Territory,  and  he 
was  also  to  appoint  all  officers  necessary  therein,  in  conformity 
with  the  ordinance  of  Congress,  made  on  the  13th  day  of  July, 
1787,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of  Orleans  were  to  be 
entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  advantages  secured  by 
the  said  ordinance,  and  then  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  Territory. 

So  much  of  the  said  Ordinance  of  Congress  as  relates  to  the 
organization  and  powers  of  a  General  Assembly,  were  to  be  in 
force  after  the  4th  of  July,  1805,  and  it  was  provided  that  the 
second  paragraph  of  the  said  Ordinance  which  regulates  the 
descent  and  distribution  of  estates,  and  also  the  6th  article  of 
Compact,  which  is  annexed  to  and  makes  part  of  said  Ordinance, 
were  not  to  extend  to,  but  were  excluded  from,  all  operation 
within  the  said  Territory  of  Orleans. 

Whenever  it  should  be  ascertained  by  a  census  taken  by  the 
proper  authority,  that  the  number  of  free  inhabitants  amounted 'to 
sixty  thousand,  then  they  were  authorized  to  form  for  themselves 
a  Constitution  and  State  government,  and  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  upon  the  footing  of  the  original  States,  in  all  respects 
whatever,  conformably  to  the  provisions  of  the  3d  article  of  the 


19 


Treaty  concluded  at  Paris,  on  the  30th  day  of  April,  1803,  be¬ 
tween  the  United  States  and  the  French  Republic  ;  provided, 
that  the  Constitution,  so  to  be  established,  shall  be  republican, 
and  not  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
nor  inconsistent  with  the  Ordinance  of  the  late  Congress^  passed 
the  IZth  day  of  July,  1787,  so  far  as  the  same  is  made  applicable 
to  the  Territorial  Grovernment  thereby  authorized  to  be  established. 

On  the  3d  March,  1805,  Congress  passed  another  act,  pro¬ 
viding  for  the  government  of  the  District  of  Louisiana,  which 
changed  its  name  to  that  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana,  vested 
the  executive  power  in  a  governor  and  secretary,  and  appointed 
three  judges,  to  whom  and  to  the  governor  the  legislative  power 
was  given. 

By  an  act,  passed  20th  February,  1811,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Territory  of  Orleans,  within  the  limits  therein  described,  were 
authorized  to  form  a  State  Constitution  and  Government,  under 
the  provisions  and  upon  the  conditions  thereinafter  mentioned. 
If  the  Constitution,  so  formed,  was  not  disapproved  of  by  Con¬ 
gress  at  their  next  session  after  its  receipt,  the  State  was  to  be 
admitted  into  the  Union.  The  Constitution  was  so  formed  in 
pursuance  of  this  act,  and  on  the  8th  of  April,  1812,  Louisiana 
was  admitted  into  the  Union  upon  the  conditions  expressed  in 
that  act  and  in  the  act  of  1811. 

On  the  4th  June,  1812,  Congress  passed  an  act,  providing  for 
the  government  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  by  which  the  Ter¬ 
ritory  heretofore  called  Louisiana  was  called  Missouri,  and  was 
organized  by  vesting  the  executive  power  in  a  governor  with  a 
secretary  and  the  legislative  power  in  a  General  Assembly,  consist¬ 
ing  of  the  governor,  a  legislative  council,  and  a  house  of  repre¬ 
sentatives,  and  the  citizens  were  authorized  to  elect  a  delegate 
from  the  said  Territory  to  Congress.  This  act  embodied  some  of 
the  most  important  principles  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787. 

By  an  act,  passed  the  second  March,  1819,  the  southern  part 
of  the  Missouri  Territory  was  erected  into  a  separate  govern¬ 
ment,  called  Arkansaw.  The  executive  power  was  vested  in  a 
governor  with  a  secretary,  the  judicial  in  three  judges,  and  the 
legislative  in  the  governor  and  judges,  until  the  organization  of 
the  General  Assembly,  which  was  to  take  place  whenever  the 


20 


governor  was  satisfied  it  was  the  wish  of  a  majority  of  the  free¬ 
holders,  at  which  time  they  were  also  allowed  to  elect  a  delegate 
to  Congress.  By  an  act  relative  to  the  Arkansas  Territory, 
passed  the  21st  of  April,  1820,  the  act  of  the  4th  June,  above 
quoted,  as  modified  by  the  act  of  the  29th  of  April,  1816,  was  to 
be  considered  as  applicable  to  the  government  of  the  Territory  of 
Arkansas,  and  to  have  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the  said 
Territory  in  the  organization  of  the  second  grade  of  the  Territorial 
government,  assumed  by  the  said  Territory,  under  the  said  act 
of  2d  March,  1819. 

The  narrative  of  the  consistent  and  unvarying  legislation  by 
Congress,  both  in  regard  to  the  admission  of  States  and  the 
government  of  Territories,  brings  us  to  the  Missouri  question, 
which  terminated  in  the  celebrated  Compromise,  pro-slavery 
politicians  of  the  present  day  declare  to  be  unconstitutional. 

THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE. 

By  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  w'e  had  acquired  a  claim  to  what 
was  called  Texas,  and  our  western  boundary  in  that  quarter, 
between  us  and  Spain,  was  unsettled  and  undefined.  Spain 
owned  the  Floridas,  which,  by  a  resolution  and  acts  passed  in 
secret  session  in  1811  and  1812,  but  not  published  until  1818, 
Congress  had  determined  should  not  pass  into  any  other  hands 
than  our  own. 

By  the  treaty  of  the  22d  February,  1819,  we  acquired  the 
Floridas,  and  ceded  to  Spain  all  our  claims  to  territory  lying 
south  and  west  of  a  boundary  line  west  of  the  Mississippi,  be¬ 
ginning  at  the  mouth  of  the  Sabine  Biver,  in  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  and  terminating  on  the  parallel  of  42°  N.  latitude  in  the 
South  Sea,  including  in  such  cession  the  province  of  Texas. 

The  people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  applied  to  Congress  in 
the  winter  of  1818-1819,  for  the  passage  of  an  act  to  enable  them 
to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  government,  preparatory  to 
their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State.  Such  an  act  passed 
the  House  of  Representatives,  but  with  a  clause  declaring  that 
the  further  introduction  of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  be 
prohibited,  except  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party* 
shall  have  been  dulv  convicted,  and  that  all  children  of  slaves 

\ 


21 


born  within  the  said  State  after  the  admission  thereof  into  the 
Union,  shall  be  free,  but  may  be  held  to  service  until  the  age 
of  twenty-five  years,  which  was,  however,  negatived  in  the 
Senate. 

Their  application  was  renewed  at  the  next  session.  In  the 
meantime  the  three  great  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and 
Ohio,  had  unanimously  remonstrated  against  the  admission  of 
Missouri,  except  with  the  restriction  above-mentioned.  The 
House  adhered  to  its  former  determination,  whilst  the  Senate 
was  equally  obstinate,  and  complicated  the  question  by  uniting 
the  fate  of  Missouri  with  that  of  Maine,  which,  by  the  terms  of 
the  act  of  Massachusetts,  must  procure  the  assent  of  Congress 
before  the  4th  of  March,  1820.  In  order,  however,  to  induce 
some  of  the  majority  of  the  House  to  give  way,  the  Senate 
passed  what  is  now  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  6th  March, 
1820,  prohibiting  slavery  in  all  the  territory  ceded  under  the 
name  of  Louisiana,  north  of  latitude  36  degrees  30  minutes  and 
north  and  west  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  After  a  very  protracted 
struggle,  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  State  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  90  to  87,  and  the  8th  section  as  it  now  stands  was  carried 
by  an  overwhelming  majority.  This  forms  what  is  called  the 
Missouri  Compromise. 

Tlte  whole  real  contest  during  the  two  sessions  was  in  relation 
to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  State.  ‘‘  On  that  occasion,” 
says  Judge  Story,  the  question  was  largely  discussed  whether 
Congress  possessed  a  constitutional  authority  to  impose  such  a 
restriction,  upon  the  ground  that  the  prescribing  of  such  a  con¬ 
dition  is  inconsistent  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  to  be  ad¬ 
mitted,  and  its  equality  with  the  other  States.  The  final  result 
of  the  vote  which  authorized  the  erection  of  that  State  seems  to 
establish  the  rightful  authority  of  Congress  to  impose  such  a  re¬ 
striction,  although  it  was  not  then  applied.” 

This  is  strictly  true,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  Missouri 
never  would  have  been  admitted  except  with  this  restriction  or 
condition,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  Senate  connected  it  with  the 
admission  of  Maine,  which  gave  the  advocates  of  Missouri  the 
votes  of  the  members  from  that  district,  as  well  as  of  those  of 
several  other  New  England  Congressmen. 


22 


,  The  vote  on  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territory,  in  the 
8th  Section,  was  in  the  Senate  34  to  10,  and  in  the  House  134 
to  42,  and,  deducting  from  the  minority  five  votes,  who  believed 
Congress  had  the  power,  it  made  the  House  vote  really  139  to  37, 
majorities  showing  the  entire  confidence  of  both  bodies  in  the  con¬ 
stitutionality,  as  well  as  the  expediency  of  extending  the  benefits 
of  the  6th  Article  of  the  Ordinance  to  the  Territories  west  of  the 
Mississippi.  In  pursuance  of  this  act  Missouri  formed  her  con¬ 
stitution  and  asked  for  admission ;  but  she  had,  by  a  provision  in 
it  in  relation  to  free  negroes,  created  another  ground  of  opposi¬ 
tion,  which,  after  various  reports  and  debates,  was  terminated  by 
a  resolution  of  the  2d  of  March,  1821,  admitting  Missouri  into 
the  Union  upon  the  fundamental  condition  that  this  clause  shall 
never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any  law,  and  that 
no  law  shall  be  passed  in  conformity  thereto,  by  which  any  citi¬ 
zen  of  either  of  the  States  in  this  Union  shall  be  excluded  from 
the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  immunities  to  which 
such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  upon  the  Legislature  of  Missouri  declaring  the  assent 
of  the  State  to  this  fundamental  condition  by  a  solemn  public  act, 
to  be  transmitted,  on  or  before  the  fourth  Monday  in  November, 
1821,  to  the  President,  who,  upon  its  receipt,  should  by  procla¬ 
mation  announce  the  fact,  whereupon  and  without  any  further 
proceeding  on  the  part  of  Congress  the  admission  should  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  complete.  This  condition  was  accepted  by  the  act  of 
the  26th  of  June,  1821,  and  on  the  10th  of  August  following  the 
President  issued  his  proclamation  declaring  the  admission  of  Mis¬ 
souri  complete  according  to  law. 

General  Washington,  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Madison, 
and  Mr.  Monroe  had  directly  afiirmed  the  constitutionality  of 
the  Ordinance  by  approving  acts  of  Congress  confirming  or 
recognizing  it,  and  by  the  performance  of  various  executive  func¬ 
tions  devolved  upon  them  by  its  provisions.  In  fact  no  President 
in  the  early  stages  of  the  government  could  hardly  have  passed 
a  day  without  its  being  brought  before  him,  directly  or  indirectly, 
in  some  way  or  other.  Congress  recognized  its  validity,  and  six 
States  had  been  admitted  into  the  Union  by  virtue  and  in  pursu¬ 
ance  of  its  provisions,  and'  three  of  them  within  the  original 


23 


Northwestern  Territory,  with  articles  against  the  existence  of 
slavery  within  their  limits,  in  conformity  to  the  Ordinance  and 
the  acts  of  Congress  enabling  them  to  form  their  constitutions 
and  State  governments. 

The  8th  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  was  a  copy  of  the  6th 
article,  and  was  simply  extending  its  effect  to  uninhabited  terri¬ 
tory  which  had  neither  slaves  nor  white  freemen  in  it.  Its  inten¬ 
tion  was  to  preserve  the  soil  for  a  white  homogeneous  population, 
which  the  experience  of  our  country  has  proved  to  he  the  best, 
the  happiest,  and  the  strongest.  It  took  no  man’s  property,  and 
it  injured  no  man. 

Mr.  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  Mr.  Lowndes,  of  South  Carolina,  and 
every  eminent  man  from  the  South,  in  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives,  were  in  favor  of  the  8th  Section,  as  constitutional,  fair,  and 
just.  Mr.  Sergeant,  and  the  Northern  phalanx,  of  course  be¬ 
lieved  it  constitutional,  and  voted  for  it  when  defeated  in  the  re¬ 
striction  upon  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  Judge  Baldwin,  who  was 
opposed  to  the  restriction  on  the  State,  went  for  the  restriction 
on  the  territory  as  entirely  constitutional. 

The  votes  in  the  Senate  prove  the  same  state  of  things  there. 
There  was,  however,  one  great  man,  the  most  accomplished  lawyer 
of  his  day,  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  whose  deliberate 
opinion  is  exceedingly  valuable.  He  had  been  elected  to  the 
Senate  on  the  23d  December,  1819,  and  had  accepted  with  a 
view  to  the  great  question  of  slave  restriction.  On  the  21st 
January,  1820,  he  spoke  three  hours  in  favor  of  the  admission 
of  Missouri  without  restriction,  without  finishing  his  argument, 
and  on  the  24th  resumed  the  remarks  he  commenced  on  Friday 
and  spoke  nearly  two  hours  in  conclusion.  It  was  justly  con¬ 
sidered  one  of  his  most  brilliant  efforts,  but  it  was  never  reported, 
and  we  have  only  such  parts  of  it  as  Mr.  Wheaton  was  able  to 
make  out  from  Mr.  Pinkney’s  notes.  These  are  preserved  and 
inserted  in  his  life  by  Mr.  Wheaton.  Mr.  Wheaton,  p.  612, 
says :  “  After  going  through  with  that  part  of  his  argument  re¬ 
lating  to  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  I  have  not  been 
able  to  restore  from  the  imperfect  notes  in  my  possession,  Mr. 
Pinkney  concluded  his  speech  by  expressing  a  hope  that  (what 
he  deemed)  the  perilous  principles  urged  by  those  in  favor  of  the 


24 


restriction  upon  the  new  States  would  be  disavowed  or  explained, 
or  that  at  all  events  the  application  of  them  to  the  subject  under 
discussion  would  not  be  pressed,  hut  that  it  might  he  disposed  of 
in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  all  hy  a  prospective  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  territory  to  the  north  and  west  of  Missouri'^  ' 

This  synopsis  of  the  conclusion  of  his  speech  is  shown  to  he 
perfectly  correct  hy  a  letter  of  Mr.  Pinkney  to  his  son-in-law, 
Mr.  Cumberland  D.  Williams,  dated  February,  1820.  [Wheaton, 
p.  167.]  ‘‘The  bill,”  writes  Mr.  Pinkney,  “for  the  admission 
of  Missouri  into  the  Union  {without  restriction  as  to  slavery)  may 
he  considered  as  past.  The  bill  was  sent  back  again,  this  morn¬ 
ing,  from  the  House,  with  the  restriction  as  to  slavery.  The 
Senate  voted  to  amend  it  by  striking  out  the  restriction  (27  to  15), 
and  proposed^  as  another  amendment^  which  1  have  all  along 
been  an  advocate  of  a  restriction  upon  the  vacant  territory  to  the 
north  and  west  as  to  slavery.  To-night,  the  House  of  Represen¬ 
tatives  have  agreed  to  both  of  these  amendments,  in  opposition  to 
their  former  votes,  and  this  affair  is  settled.  To-morrow  we  shall, 
of  course,  recede  from  our  amendments  as  to  Maine  (our  object 
being  effected),  and  both  States  will  be  admitted.  This  happy 
result  has  been  accomplished  hy  the  conference  of  which  I  was  a 
member  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and  of  which  I  prepared  the 
report  which  has  been  made.” 

On  the  25th  January,  1820,  Mr.  King,  of  New  York,  took  his 
seat  in  the  Senate,  having  been  elected  on  the  8th  January,  and 
on  the  11th  of  February  spoke  about  two  hours  in  support  of  the 
right  and  expediency  of  restricting  the  contemplated  State  of 
Missouri  from  permitting  slavery  therein,  and  yet  the  author  of 
the  second  life  of  Mr.  Pinkney  (his  nephew)  speaks  of  Mr.  Pink¬ 
ney’s  speech  being  an  answer  to  Mr.  King,  and  that  Mr.  King 
was  so  struck  hy  it  that  he  never  replied  to  it. 

The  Missouri  bill  having  been  presented  to  the  President,  Mr. 
Monroe,  he  requested  the  written  opinions  of  his  cabinet  upon 
two  questions.  The  first  was  whether  Congress  had  the  Consti¬ 
tutional  right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  a  Territory  ?  The  second 
was  whether  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  bill  was  consistent 
with  the  Constitution  ?  The  answers  to  both  were  unanimously 
in  the  affirmative. 


25 


The  members  of  Mr.  Monroe’s  cabinet  were  the  most  distin¬ 
guished  statesmen  and  jurists  of  the  day.  Mr.  Adams  was 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Crawford  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
Judge  Thompson  (afterwards  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States)  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr.  Wirt,  of  Virginia,  a  profound 
lawyer,  Attorney-General,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  Secretary  of  War, 
the  latter  having  been  elected  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives  during  the  war,  and  as  such  continued  until  his  appoint¬ 
ment  to  the  cabinet  on  the  8th  October,  1817. 

These  facts  appear  by  the  papers  of  Mr.  Monroe,  the  Diary 
of  Mr.  Adams,  and  subsequent  researches,  and  by  the  clear  ad¬ 
missions  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  made  in  debate  in  the  Senate,  in  1838. 

Any  reasonable  man  would  have  supposed  that  this  decision, 
made  with  the  assent  of  every  Constitutional  jurist  and  states¬ 
man  in  the  country,  was  a  final  settlement  of  a  question  which 
would  never  again  be  disturbed  so  long  as  the  Constitution  itself 
was  in  existence. 

It  became  the  uniform  rule  under  every  succeeding  President, 
Mr.  Adams,  General  Jackson,  and  Mr.  Tyler ;  the  latter  extend¬ 
ing  it  in  the  most  liberal  manner  to  the  case  of  the  annexation 
of  Texas. 


TEXAS  AND  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE. 

The  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  having  failed  in  the 
Senate,  it  was  determined  to  effect  the  same  object  by  a  joint 
resolution  of  Congress.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  scheme  of 
Mr.  Calhoun,  who,  as  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Southern 
leader,  was  the  great  master  spirit. 

On  the  25th  January,  1845,  a  joint  resolution  for  annexing 
Texas  to  the  United  States,  upon  terms  similar  to  the  rejected 
treaty  which  had  been  reported  by  Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  from  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  with  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Weller,  and  an  amendment  to  the  amendment,  offered  .by  Mr. 
Douglass,  were  under  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  the  hour  fixed  for  the  termination  of  the  debate  by  the 
House  having  arrived,  the  committee  proceeded  to  vote  on  them, 
and  the  several  propositions  subsequently  offered. 


26 


The  amendment  of  Mr.  Douglass  to  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Weller,  and  various  others  offered  by  other  gentlemen,  were 
successively  rejected,  until  Mr.  Milton  Brown,  of  Tennessee,  sub¬ 
mitted  an  amendment  to  it,  striking  out  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Weller,  after  the  word  “Resolved,”  and  inserting  what  formed 
the  real  substance  of  the  joint  resolution  as  it  passed  both 
branches  of  Congress. 

The  first  section  gave  the  consent  of  Congress  to  the  erection 
of  the  Territory  belonging  to  the  Republic  of  Texas  into  a  new 
State,  to  be  called  the  State  of  Texas,  with  a  republican  form  of 
government,  in  order  that  the  same  may  be  admitted  as  one  of 
the  States  of  this  Union. 

The  second  section:  Resolved,  That  the  foregoing  consent 
of  Congress  is  given  upon  the  folloiving  conditions,  and  with  the 
following  guarantees,  to  wit : 

“  The  third  of  which  was  in  these  words  :  ‘  New  States  of  a 
convenient  size,  not  exceeding  four  in  number,  in  addition  to  said 
State  of  Texas,  and,  having  sufficient  population,  may  hereafter, 
by  the  consent  of  said  State,  be  formed  out  of  the  Territory 
thereof,  which  shall  be  entitled  to  admission  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  ;  and  such  States,  as  may  be  formed 
out  of  that  portion  of  said  Territory,  lying  south  of  36°  30'  north 
latitude,  commonly  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  Line, 
shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  with  or  without  Slavery,  as  the 
people  of  each  State  asking  admission  may  desire.’  ” 

Mr.  Douglass  (of  Illinois),  asked  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee, 
to  accept  the  following  as  a  modification  of  his  amendment,  to 
come  in  after  the  last  clause:  “And  in  such  State  or  States  as 
shall  he  formed  out  of  said  Territory  north  of  said  Missouri  Com¬ 
promise  Line,  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for  crimes) 
shall  he  prohibited.” 

Mr.  M.  Brown  accepted  the  modification,  and  the  amendment 
or  substitute  as  modified,  was  adopted,  and  the  resolution  in  this 
shape  finally  passed  the  House  on  the  same  day. 

In  the  Senate  another  section  was  added,  allowing  the  Presi¬ 
dent,  if  he  deemed  it  expedient,  instead  of  submitting  the  fore¬ 
going  resolution  to  the  Republic  of  Texas,  as  an  overture  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  for  admission,  to  negotiate  with  that 


27 


Republic  upon  the  terms  set  forth  in  another  resolution.  This 
was  adopted  by  the  Senate,  and  agreed  to  by  the  House,  and  the 
whole  became  a  law  on  the  1st  March,  1845. 

Mr.  Buchanan  (who  was  in  a  minority  of  one  in  the  Committee 
of  Foreign  Relations  on  this  subject),  made  a  very  able  speech  in 
their  favor,  approving  of  every  part  of  them,  and  particularly 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line.  Speaking  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  itself,  he  said  emphatically  “  Who  could  complain 
of  the  Compromise  ?  It  was  then  settled  that  north  of  36  deg. 
30  min.,  slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited.  The  same 
line  was  fixed  upon  in  the  resolutions  recently  received  from 
the  House  of  Representatives  now  before  us.  The  bill  from 
the  House  for  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government  in 
Oregon,  excluded  slavery  altogether  from  that  vast  country.  How 
vain  were  the  fears  entertained  in  some  quarters  of  the  country 
that  the  slave-holding  States  would  ever  be  able  to  control  the 
Union !” 

Not,  however,  a  vain  fear  at  this  day  when  we  read  the  Cin¬ 
cinnati  Platform,  of  indefinite  slavery  extension,  rendering  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States  slave  territories  by  force  of 
its  heretical  dogmas,  and  of  course  making  all  future  States 
created  out  of  them  slave  States ;  and  when  we  also  find  the  elo¬ 
quent  and  able  Senator  selected  by  the  Convention  as  the  ex¬ 
ponent  of  these  unconstitutional  doctrines. 

It  was  supposed  by  those  who  were  propitiated  by  the  third  sec¬ 
tion  inserted  in  the  Senate,  giving  the  option  to  the  President  to 
negotiate,  and  whose  aid  was  necessary  to  carry  the  joint  reso¬ 
lution,  that  the  choice  of  the  alternatives  would  be  left  to  Pre¬ 
sident  Polk.  Mr.  Calhoun,  however,  determined  to  clinch  the 
nail  before  his  power  expired,  and,  on  the  3d  of  March,  the  last 
day  of  President  Tyler’s  administration,  he  wrote  a  despatch  to 
Mr.  Honelson,  instructing  him,  by  the  President’s  orders,  to  pre¬ 
sent  to  the  government  of  Texas,  as  the  basis  of  its  admission, 
the  proposals  contained  in  the  resolution  as  it  came  from  the 
House  of  Representatives ;  and,  after  discussing  the  feasibility 
of  amendments  by  Texas,  he  says  :  “  But  it  is  deemed  by  the 
President  of  great  importance  that  the  resolution  should  be 
adopted  without  amendment.” 

President  Tyler,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  all  the  other  members  of 


28 


the  Cabinet,  including  Mr.  Mason  and  that  distinguished  jurist 
John  Nelson,  of  Maryland,  then  Attorney-General,  approved  and 
sanctioned  the  measure  of  applying  the  doctrine  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  to  the  future  admission  of  a  State,  to  be  carved  out 
of  slave  territory,  and  within  whose  limits,  as  an  indispensable 
condition,  ‘‘  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for  crimes), 
shall  be  prohibited.” 

The  8th  Section  of  the  Missouri  Act  of  1820,  affirmed  the 
power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories  of  the 
United  States,  the  3d  condition  of  the  2d  Section  of  the  Texas 
joint  resolution  of  1845,  distinctly  affirmed  the  power  of  Congress 
to  impose  upon  a  State  taken  from  slave  territory,  as  a  sine  qua 
non,  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  within  its  boundaries. 

Upon  the  accession  of  President  Polk,  Mr.  Buchanan,  as 
Secretary  of  State,  writes  on  the  10th  of  March  to  Mr.  Donelson, 
noticing  the  despatch  of  Mr.  Calhoun  of  the  3d  inst.,  and  stating 
the  proposition  distinctly  made  in  it  to  the  Government  of  Texas, 
and  then  proceeds:  ‘‘President  Tyler  having  thus  determined  to 
adopt  the  two  first  of  the  series  of  resolutions,  instead  of  the 
alternative  presented  by  the  third,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  Pre¬ 
sident  to  devote  his  attention  to  this  important  question  at  as  early, 
a  moment  as  possible.  This  has  been  done,  and  his  deliberations 
have  resulted  in  a  clear  and  firm  conviction  that  it  would  be  in¬ 
expedient  to  reverse  the  decision  of  his  predecessor.” 

“The  President  prefers  the  two  first  resolutions,  because  they 
will,  in  his  judgment,  the  most  speedily  and  certainly  secure  the 
admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union.” 

“In  every  aspect  in  which  the  President  has  viewed  this 
subject,  he  believes  that  the  paramount  question  of  admission  can 
be  best  settled,  and  the  just  rights  of  Texas  can  be  best  secured, 
by  her  acceptance  without  qualification  of  the  terms  and  condi¬ 
tions  proposed  by  the  first  two  resolutions,  and  he  therefore  con¬ 
fidently  expects  that  you  will  exert  your  well-known  ability  and 
energy  to  secure  this  auspicious  result  by  every  honorable  means 
within  your  power.” 

On  the  23d  June,  1845,  the  existing  government  of  Texas 
gave  their  consent  to  the  provisions  of  the  joint  resolution  of  the 
American  Congress  for  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States, 


29 


and  a  convention  of  delegates  to  form  a  State  Constitution,  to 
be  held  on  the  4th  July,  1845,  was  also  sanctioned. 

This  Convention  met  and  passed  an  ordinance,  on  the  4th 
July,  1845,  giving  the  assent  of  the  people  of  Texas  to  the  pro¬ 
posals,  conditions,  and  guarantees  contained  in  the  first  and 
second  sections  of  the  joint  resolution  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  as  recited  in  said  ordinance.  This  Convention, 
on  the  27th  August,  adopted  a  Constitution,  by  the  13th  section 
of  the  schedule  to  which,  the  aforesaid  ordinance  of  the  4th  July 
was  attached,  and  formed  a  part  of  the  same.  The  people  of 
Texas,  at  the  polls,  accepted  the  terms  of  annexation  and  ratified 
the  Constitution. 

By  a  joint  resolution  of  the  29th  December,  1845,  reciting  the 
joint  resolution  of  the  1st  March,  and  all  the  acts  done  by  the 
government  and  people  of  Texas  already  stated,  the  State  of 
Texas  was  admitted  into  the  Union. 

President  Polk  carried  out  in  full  the  plan  adopted  by  Mr. 
Calhoun,  and  he  and  all  his  Cabinet,  including  Mr.  Buchanan 
and  Mr.  Walker,  who  had  advocated  the  measure  in  the  Senate, 
fully  approved  and  sanctioned  the  Constitutional  power  of  Con¬ 
gress  over  slavery,  so  clearly  asserted  in  the  second  section  of 
this  celebrated  joint  resolution. 

At  the  close  of  his  Presidential  career.  President  Polk,  having 
on  the  14th  August,  1848,  approved  the  Oregon  bill,  which,  in 
its  14th  section,  contained  an  extension  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787 
to  that  Terrritory,  sent  a  message  to  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives,  stating  his  reasons  for  signing  it,  in  which  he  distinctly 
affirmed  the  constitutionality  and  expediency  of  the  Texas  and 
Missouri  Compromises  which  I  have  just  discussed. 

Of  our  acquisitions  from  Mexico : 

California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  free  State.  Terri¬ 
torial  governments  were  formed  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  and 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  State  of  Texas  was  settled  with 
her  consent.  The  legislation  of  1850  was  confined  entirely  to 
these  Territories,  and  was  not  in  any  manner  extended  to  the 
Territory  covered  by  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  1820,  nor  did 
any  man  dream  that  it  could  be  until  it  became  necessary  to  find 
an  excuse  for  making  Kansas  a  slave  State. 


30 


By  the  treaty  with  Spain  of  1819,  and  the  8th  section  of  the 
Missouri  Act  of  1820,  the  South  got  three  slave  States — Mis¬ 
souri,  Arkansas,  and  Florida — comprising  all  the  then  territory 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  south  of  36  deg.  30  min. 
with  the  exception  of  the  territory  reserved  for  the  Indians. 
The  benefit  to  the  free  States  and  their  white  freemen  was  pro¬ 
spective,  and  only  one  free  State,  Iowa,  has  been  admitted  out  of 
the  territory  devoted  to  Freedom.  The  South  have  obtained 
six  Senators,  Freedom  only  two. 

After  the  accession  of  President  Pierce,  who  owed  his  nomina¬ 
tion  to  Virginia  and  the  slave  States,  the  South  were  encouraged 
to  attempt  a  destruction  of  the  Compromise  under  the  lead  of 
the  Senator  from  Illinois.  It  was,  however,  approached  cau¬ 
tiously  and  warily,  and  with  many  backings  and  fillings  on  the 
part  of  the  projectors  and  the  Government  organ. 

New  Mexico  and  California  were  free  by  the  law  of  nations, 
slavery  being  prohibited  by  the  laws  and  constitution  of  Mexico, 
and,  of  course,  would  remain  so  until  altered  by  an  act  of  Con¬ 
gress.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Clay  and  all  the  eminent 
men  in  1850. 

Small  men  carped  at  the  doctrine,  and  the  acts  for  the  Terri¬ 
torial  Governments  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  did  not  decide  it. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  fixed  by  an  act  of  Congress, 
which  must  stand  until  repealed,  for  it  was  a  clear  absurdity  to 
call  it  unconstitutional.  The  Committee  on  Territories,  however, 
willing  to  escape  from  the  odium  of  direct  repeal,  thought  there 
was  a  resemblance  between  the  two  cases,  and  they  accordingly 
said  in  their  report  to  the  Senate  on  the  4th  January,  1854, 
“  Your  committee  are  not  prepared  now  to  recommend  a  departure 
from  the  course  pursued  on  that  memorable  occasion,  either  by 
affirming  or  repealing  the  8th  section  of  the  Missouri  Act,  or  by 
any  act  declaratory  of  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  in  re¬ 
spect  to  the  legal  points  in  dispute.” 

The  committee  were,  however,  by  the  outside  pressure,  and 
the  manly  declaration  of  Mr.  Dixon,  of  Kentucky,  that  he  would 
move  a  direct  repeal,  forced  at  last  into  an  indirect  nullification 
of  the  8th  section,  as  it  appears  in  the  32d  section  of  the  act  to 
organize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas.  Mark  the 
words : 


31 


‘‘  That  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States,  which 
are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect 
within  the  said  Territory  of  Kansas  as  elsewhere  within  the 
United  States,  except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to 
the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March  6th, 
1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-inter¬ 
vention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories 
as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the 
Compromise  measures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void; 
it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom, 
but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu¬ 
late  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Provided,  that  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or  put  in  force  any 
law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  6th 
of  March,  1820,  either  protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or 
abolishing  slavery.” 

It  is  perfectly  clear  from  this  clause,  1.  That  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850  did  not  touch  or  in  any  manner  reach  the  ter¬ 
ritory  covered  by  the  prohibition  in  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of 
the  6th  March,  1820.  2.  That  the  Compromise  of  1850,  re¬ 

lated  to  new  acquisitions,  whilst  the  Compromise  of  1820  related 
exclusively  to  territory  then  owned  by  the  United  States,  and 
the  subject  of  division  at  the  time  into  slave  and  free  territory 
by  mutual  agreement. 

3.  That  the  reason  assigned  for  declaring  the  8th  section  in¬ 
operative  and  void  is  not  founded  in  fact,  for  no  sane  man  in 
1850  dreamed  of  affecting  the  Compromise  of  1820,  which  stood 
on  its  own  merits,  and  applied  to  entirely  different  territory,  dif¬ 
ferently  circumstanced,  and  on  the  faith  of  which  Compromise 
the  three  slave  States  of  Missouri,  Arkansas,  and  Florida  had 
been  admitted  into  the  Union. 

4.  That  the  disclaimer  of  legislation  looks  exceedingly  as  if 
Congress  thought  they  possessed  the  power  to  deal  with  slavery 
in  the  territory,  particularly  when  they  give  authority  to  the 
people  to  act  upon  it.  If  the  people  of  the  territory  derive 
their  power  from  this  section  to  admit  or  exclude  slavery,  then 


32 


Congress,  who  vest  them  with  it,  must  undoubtedly  have  the 
same  power,  and  can  prohibit  slavery  whenever  such  is  their 
pleasure. 

,5.  That  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  1820,  like  the  6th 
Article  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  the  last  clause  in  the 
third  condition  of  the  second  section  of  the  joint  resolution  for 
annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  is  constitutional. 

From  the  review  of  the  Constitution  and  Territorial  legisla¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States,  it  is  abundantly  certain  that  the  6th 
Article  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  the  Missouri  and  Texas 
Compromises,  which  were  hut  extensions  of  it,  were  clearly  con¬ 
stitutional  measures,  and  intended  to  work  out  the  greatest  good 
for  the  greatest  number. 

From  the  earlier  provisions  have  sprung  the  six  great  free 
States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and 
Iowa,  which  number  no  doubt  at  this  hour  as  many  white  free 
inhabitants  as  the  whole  fifteen  slave  States  put  together. 

I  should  not  have  pursued  the  argument  to  this  extent,  if  the 
Cincinnati  Convention,  in  their  platform,  had  not  expressly  de¬ 
clared  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
territories,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  think  I  have  shown 
conclusively  that  they  have  the  power  over  slavery  in  the  territories, 
and  have  exercised  it  from  the  commencement  of  the  Government, 
and  this  is  the  real  issue  in  this  campaign.  The  power  over  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  I  have  never  heard  doubted  by  any 
sound  jurist  or  statesman,  and  it  is  obvious  to  any  one  who  will 
read  the  plain  words  of  the  Constitution.  The  Congress  shall 
have  power  ‘‘  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  what¬ 
soever^  over  such  District;”  and  singular  as  it  may  appear  to  the 
members  of  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  one  of  the  celebrated 
compromise  measures  of  1850,  was  an  act  to  suppress  the 
slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,”  which,  under  this  new 
reading  of  the  Constitution,  should  be  instantly  repealed.  The 
expediency  of  further  interference  has  been  doubted  by  very 
able  men,  and  as  it  is  not  one  of  the  issues  at  the  ensuing  elec¬ 
tion,  I  dismiss  it  with  these  few  observations. 

Both  of  these  planks  in  the  platform  are  rotten,  and  the  can¬ 
didate  who  stands  upon  them,  must  fall  to  the  ground. 


33 


I  can  say,  therefore,  with  perfect  freedom  and  entire  truth, 
that  this  actual  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  by  the 
Nehraska-Kansas  Act,  was  a  breach  of  national  faith  and  viola¬ 
tion  of  national  honor,  which  was  rebuked  by  the  people  in  1854, 
and  will  be  still  more  severely  punished  in  1856,  when  the  crimes 
against  Kansas  and  its  unoffending  free  citizens  have  been  made 
known  to  the  whole  civilized  world  in  the  most  authentic  form. 

KANSAS. 

The  apparent  plan  of  the  Kansas  Bill  was  to  leave  the  jpeople 
of  the  Territory  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way. 

This  clearly  meant  that  this  was  not  to  be  done  by  the  people 
of  Missouri,  but  by  those  who  made  the  territory  their  home,  and 
not  a  mere  place  of  transit  or  temporary  sojourn.  There  was 
another  difficulty ;  under  the  Constitution  the  slaveholder  claims 
a  right  to  enter  any  territory  with  his  slaves,  and  assumes  as  a 
principle  that  all  the  territory  of  the  United  States  is  slave  terri¬ 
tory,  and  that  no  territorial  legislature  can  exclude  him  and  his 
human  chattels.  The  territory  under  this  construction  necessa¬ 
rily  becomes  slave  territory,  and  therefore  the  other  provision  of 
the  Kansas  Bill,  that  when  admitted  as  a  State  it  shall  be  received 
into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery  as  the  Constitution  may 
prescribe,  is  a  mere  nullity  and  an  absolute  farce,  as  a  slave 
territory  must  always  become  a  slave  State. 

Into  these  difficulties  has  the  criminal  violation  of  a  solemn 
compromise  led  the  apparent  friends,  but  real  enemies,  of  popular 
sovereignty,  and  the  practice  under  the  organic  laws  of  Kansas 
is  the  best  proof  of  the  soundness  of  the  Constitutional  doctrine 
of  the  supreme  and  exclusive  power  of  Congress  over  the  terri¬ 
tories  in  their  territorial  form. 

Who  can  protect  an  infant  Territory  and  its  citizens  against 
the  invasion  of  the  hordes  of  an  adjoining  State  but  Congress  ? 
The  Territory,  sparsely  settled,  cannot  resist  a  foreign  invasion, 
and  a  populous  State  can  easily  conquer  and  subdue  its  few  in¬ 
habitants. 

Under  such  theories  and  practice  every  new  Territory  must 
belong  to  the  next  State,  and  becomes  its  prey ;  and,  instead  of 

3 


34 


all  the  citizens  of  the  thirty-one  States  having  any  lot  or  part  in 
it,  it  must  become  the  property  of  the  one  State  which  cuts  it  off 
from  all  communication  with  any  others. 

Now  this  has  been  exactly  the  case  of  Kansas.  The  access  to 
her  is  through  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  by  the  Missouri  River. 
No  free  State  man  could  travel  with  his  family  by  land  or  water 
without  being  stopped,  robbed  of  his  property,  his  arms  (if  he  had 
any)  taken  from  him,  and  confiscated  to  the  use  of  his  plunderers; 
and,  if  not  tarred  and  feathered,  or  shot  and  scalped,  turned  back 
and  directed  to  leave  the  State,  and  not  to  attempt  to  enter 
Kansas.  In  and  out  of  Kansas  unoffending  men,  Methodist 
ministers,  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  merchants,  trades¬ 
men,  mechanics,  and  farmers,  with  their  wives  and  families,  have 
been  exposed  to  all  kinds  of  ill  treatment  because  they  preferred 
freedom  to  slavery,  and  wished  Kansas  to  be  a  free  Territory 
and  a  free  State.  For  all  these  outrages  and  murders  not  one 
single  individual  has  had  any  redress ;  nor  has  one  single  guilty 
person  ever  been  punished. 

It  would  be  a  dangerous  matter  for  any  one  to  complain  of 
such  acts  to  any  tribunal  or  officer,  either  in  Kansas  or  Missouri. 
This  is  no  exaggerated  picture,  but  is  far  below  the  truth.  The 
policy  of  the  Border  Ruffian  party  has  been  to  prevent  all  free 
white  citizens,  who  were  not  devoted  to  slavery,  from  entering 
Kansas  by  any  route,  and  if  they  reached  the  Territory  to  drive 
them  out  by  threats  of  violence,  or  the  application  of  a  direct 
force,  in  its  most  dangerous  form. 

I  have  examined  with  care  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  appointed  to  investigate  the  troubles 
in  Kansas,  and  fully  agree  with  them  in  the  facts  and  conclu¬ 
sions  which  they  regard  as  established  by  the  testimony. 

They  are  to  be  found  at  page  67  of  the  Report,  No.  200,  34th 
Congress,  1st  session.  House  of  Representatives.  Amongst  them 
are:  ‘‘First,  that  each  election  in  the  Territory,  held  under  the 
organic  or  alleged  Territorial  law,  has  been  carried  by  organized 
invasion  from  the  State  of  Missouri,  by  which  the  people  of  the 
Territory  have  been  prevented  from  exercising  the  rights  secured 
to  them  by  the  organic  law.” 

“  Second,  That  the  alleged  Territorial  legislature  was  an 


35 


illegally  constituted  body,  and  had  no  power  to  pass  valid  laws, 
and  their  enactments  are  therefore  null  and  void.” 

Third,  That  these  alleged  laws  have  not  been,  as  a  general 
thing,  used  to  protect  persons  and  property,  and  to  punish  wrong, 
but  for  unlawful  purposes.” 

The  election  for  members  of  the  Territorial  legislature  was 
held  on  the  30th  March,  1855,  and  it  is  proved  by  incontestable 
evidence,  that,  by  an  organized  movement  which  extended  over 
a  large  portion  of  the  border  counties  of  Missouri,  companies  of 
men  were  arranged  and  sent  into  every  council  district  in  the 
Territory,  and  into  every  Representative  district  but  one,  and 
the  numbers  were  so  distributed  as  to  control  the  election  in  each 
district.  They  went  to  vote,  and  with  the  avowed  design  to  make 
Kansas  a  Slave  State,  and  were  generally  armed  and  equipped, 
and  carried  with  them  their  own  provisions.  They  succeeded  by 
force,  fraud,  intimidation,  and  violence,  and  returned  pro-slavery 
members  of  the  Territorial  legislature,  elected  by  citizens  of  the 
State  of  Missouri,  who,  to  the  number  of  nearly  five  thousand, 
had  voted  in  the  several  election  districts. 

It  was,  in  fact,  a  Missouri,  not  a  Kansas,  election,  and  the 
legislature  was  a  Missouri,  and  not  a  Kansas  one. 

A  parallel  to  such  an  outrage  could  only  be  found  in  supposing 
that  we  should  send  twenty  thousand  armed  men  into  the  State 
of  Delaware,  who  should  take  possession  of  the  polls,  elect  a 
governor,  a  legislature,  and  all  the  State  and  county  officers,  and 
then  ask  the  people  to  submit  to  cruel  and  infamous  laws  passed 
by  this  spurious  legislative  body,  and  the  whole  should  be  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  the  regular 
government  of  Delaware,  and  all  opposition  to  it  put  down  by 
the  army  of  the  United  States. 

These  pretended  laws  of  Kansas  are,  for  the  most  part,  tran¬ 
scripts,  of  the  Missouri  laws,  from  the  Digest  of  1845,  and  form 
additional  evidence  of  its  being  solely  a  Missouri  legislature. 

These  laws  assume,  that  Slavery  exists  in  Kansas.  There  is 
no  act  establishing  Slavery,  or  declaring  human  beings  to  be 
property,  but  all  the  enactments  proceed  upon  the  principle,  that 
by  the  Nebraska-Kansas  act  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  this  is  one  of  the  original  domestic  institutions  of  the 


36 


Territory.  According  to  this  doctrine,  it  was  Slave  territory 
before  any  legislature  was  elected,  or  any  governor  or  judges 
were  appointed. 

Thus,  in  the  first  section  of  the  act  (ch.  151)  to  punish  offences 
against  slave  property,  it  was  enacted,  “  That  every  person,  bond 
or  free,  who  shall  be  convicted  of  actually  raising  a  rebellion  or 
insurrection  of  slaves,  free  negroes,  or  mulattoes,in  this  Territory, 
shall  suffer  death which  means,  that  the  citizen,  who  believes 
this  to  be  a  free  Territory,  is  to  be  hung. 

“  Sect.  12.  If  any  free  person,  by  speaking  or  by  writing, 
assert  or  maintain  that  persons  have  not  the  right  to  hold  slaves 
in  this  Territory,  or  shall  introduce  into  this  Territory,  print, 
publish,  write,  circulate,  or  cause  to  be  introduced  into  this  Ter¬ 
ritory,  written,  printed,  published,  or  circulated  in  this  Territory, 
any  book,  paper,  magazine,  pamphlet,  or  circular  containing  any 
denial  of  the  right  of  persons  to  hold  slaves  in  this  Territory, 
such  person  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  felony,  and  punished  by  im¬ 
prisonment  at  hard  labor  for  a  term  of  not  less  than  two  years.” 

This  is  clearly  on  a  par  with  Mr.  Sherwood  in  Texas  being 
prohibited  by  a  public  meeting  from  addressing  his  constituents 
in  defence  of  his  course  in  the  Legislature,  unless  he  omitted  all 
allusions  to  slavery,  his  offence  being  that  he  had  asserted  the 
power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  in  other 
words,  to  pass  the  Missouri  Compromise  Act;  or  with  Mr.  Un¬ 
derwood,  being  exiled  from  his  home  in  Virginia  because  he  was 
a  member  of  the  Republican  Convention  in  this  city ;  or  with  the 
two  honest  Irishmen,  Malone  and  Colwell,  being  sent  away  from 
South  Carolina  and  advertised  like  runaway  slaves,  or  criminals 
escaped  from  the  penitentiary,  because  one  of  them  said  he  was 
in  favor  of  Free  Kansas ;  with  the  expulsion  of  the  booksellers 
from  Mobile,  and  the  outrages  upon  free  speech  at  Wheeling  and 
Baltimore ;  and  the  still  greater  outrage  upon  the  freedom  of 
debate  by  the  brutal  attack  upon  Mr.  Sumner,  which  has  dis¬ 
graced  the  country  in  the  eyes  of  the  whole  civilized  world. 

But  there  is  still  another  section,  under  which  any  conscien¬ 
tious  free  State  man,  who  even  hands  to  his  neighbor  this  speech 
or  any  other  harangue  delivered  in  the  free  States  upon  the 
coming  elections,  may  be  visited  with  a  much  severer  punishment. 


37 


for  it  is  only  pro-slavery  juries  and  judges  who  can  try  him  by 
the  laws  of  Kansas. 

“Sect.  11.  If  any  person  print,  write,  introduce  into,  publish, 
or  circulate,  or  cause  to  be  brought  into,  printed,  written,  pub¬ 
lished  or  circulated,  or  shall  knowingly  aid  or  assist  in  bringing 
into,  printing,  publishing,  or  circulating  within  this  Territory 
any  book,  paper,  pamphlet,  magazine,  hand-bill,  or  circular,  con¬ 
taining  any  statements,  arguments,  opinions,  sentiments,  doc¬ 
trine,  advice  or  innuendo,  calculated  to  produce  a  disorderly, 
dangerous  or  rebellious  disaffection  among  the  slaves  in  this  Ter¬ 
ritory,  or  to  induce  such  slaves  to  escape  from  the  service  of  their 
masters  or  to  resist  their  authority,  he  shall  be  guilty  of  felony 
and  be  punished  by  imprisonment  and  hard  labor  for  a  terra  of  not 
less  than  five  years.” 

From  these  enactments  it  is  certain  that  a  speech  in  favor  of 
Fremont  in  Kansas  would  place  the  speaker  in  the  penitentiary, 
or  rather  condemn  him  to  the  ball  and  chain. 

Under  such  laws  no  man  could  advocate  any  candidate  upon 
the  ground  either  that  he  was  opposed  to  slavery  in  Kansas  and 
would  so  vote  in  the  Legislature,  or  if  in  a  convention  to  form  a 
State  government,  would  vote  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in 
the  constitution.  These  laws,  in  fact,  nullify  all  the  provisions 
of  the  organic  law. 

The  provisions  as  to  attorneys-at-law,  jurors,  and  voters  are 
all  intended,  by  prescribing  oaths  which  cannot  he  taken  by  free 
State  men,  to  throw  the  whole  power  of  the  legislative  and  judi¬ 
cial  branches  of  Government  into  the  hands  of  pro-slavery  men 
of  the  Border-ruffian  stamp,  which,  with  the  appointments  by  the 
executive  at  Washington,  give  the  whole  power  in  Kansas  to  the 
Missouri  invaders. 

No  matter,  therefore,  what  may  be  the  majority  of  free  State 
men  in  Kansas,  under  such  laws  they  are  powerless. 

There  is  every  reason,  therefore,  that  being  null  and  void,  these 
laws  should  be  nullified  forever  by  a  change  in  the  administration 
at  W ashington,  which  can  be  done  by  a  united  effort  of  the  friends 
of  freedom  in  Pennsylvania  in  favor  of  Fremont  and  Dayton. 

These  crimes  in  Kansas  and  Missouri,  the  acts  of  fraud  and 
violence  committed  by  the  Border  Ruffians  in  both,  the  acts  I 


38 


have  already  enumerated,  and  not  the  least  the  killing  of  the  inno¬ 
cent  and  unoffending  Keating  ;  not  one  of  which  crimes  have  ever 
been,  or  ever  will  be,  punished  by  the  authorities  in  the  slave  States, 
can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  deliberate  opinion  of  Thomas  Jef¬ 
ferson  of  the  dreadful  effect  of  slavery  upon  the  masters.  ‘‘There 
must  doubtless  be,”  said  this  eminent  patriot,  “  an  unhappy  influ¬ 
ence  on  the  manners  of  our  people,  produced  by  the  existence  of 
slavery  among  us.  The  whole  commerce  between  master  and 
slave  is  a  perpetual  exercise  of  the  most  boisterous  passions,  the 
most  unremitting  despotism  on  the  one  part,  and  degrading  sub¬ 
missions  on  the  other.  Our  children  see  this  and  learn  to  imitate 
it ;  for  man  is  an  imitative  animal.  This  quality  is  the  germ  of 
all  education  in  him.  From  his  cradle  to  his  grave  he  is  learning 
to  do  what  he  sees  others  do.  If  a  parent  could  find  no  motive 
either  in  his  philanthropy  or  his  self-love,  for  restraining  the  in¬ 
temperance  of  passion  towards  his  slave,  it  should  always  be  a 
sufiicient  one  that  his  child  is  present.  But  generally  it  is  not 
sufficient.  The  parent  storms,  the  child  looks  on,  catches  the 
lineaments  of  wrath,  puts  on  the  same  airs  in  the  circle  of  smaller 
slaves,  gives  a  loose  to  his  worst  of  passions^  and  thus  nursed, 
educated,  and  daily  exercised  in  tyranny,  cannot  but  be  stamped 
by  it  with  odious  peculiarities.  The  man  must  be  a  prodigy  who 
can  retain  his  manners  and  morals  undepraved  by  such  circum- 
:Stances.  And  with  what  execration  should  the  statesman  he  loaded 
who,  permitting  one-half  of  the  citizens  thus  to  trample  on  the 
rights  of  the  other,  transforms  those  into  despots,  and  these  into 
enemies,  destroys  the  morals  of  the  one  part  and  the  amor  patrice 
of  the  other  !” 

After  perusing  this  painful  picture  by  the  author  of  the  im¬ 
mortal  Declaration  of  Independence,  what  true-hearted  son  of 
Pennsylvania  can  refuse  to  vote  for  free  Kansas. 

The  judicial  department  in  Kansas  appears  to  be  on  a  level 
with  the  Legislature,  if  the  accounts  of  the  charges  and  decisions 
of  the  Judges  be  correct.  It  was  supposed  that  the  Treason 
Trials  in  Philadelphia  had  disposed  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  con¬ 
structive  treason,  by  showing  that  the  English  decisions  in 
Messenger,  and  Damaree  and  Purchase’s  cases  were  not  re¬ 
garded  as  good  law,  even  in  England,  the  first  being  the  miser- 


39 


able  opinion  of  one  of  the  most  contemptible  judges  that  ever 
disgraced  the  bench  of  a  court  of  justice,  and  the  other  being 
founded  upon  it. 

It  appears,  however,  that  the  Chief  Justice  of  Kansas  believes 
in  constructive  treason,  and  that  it  consists,  in  his  opinion,  in  an 
opposition  to  the  Territorial  laws,  which  being  passed  under  the 
Nebraska-Kansas  Act  by  the  Territorial  Legislature,  he  says 
become  laws  of  the  United  States,  and,  therefore,  it  is  treason 
against  the  United  States  ! 

This  is  upon  a  par  with  the  Grand  Jury  of  his  Court  finding  a 
printing-press  and  hotel,  in  Lawrence,  nuisances,  and  their  abate¬ 
ment  in  consequence  of  these  findings,  by  the  officers  of  justice, 
at  the  head  of  a  body  of  armed  ruffians,  cannonading  and  burn¬ 
ing  the  one,  and  destroying  the  other. 

If  General  Jackson  had  been  President  instead  of  General 
Pierce,  not  one  of  these  crimes  against  Kansas  would  have  been 
committed,  the  Missouri  Compromise  would  never  have  been  re¬ 
pealed,  the  Border  Ruffians  never  would  have  invaded  and  taken 
military  possession  of  the  Territory,  nor  would  the  access  by  the 
great  highway  of  the  Missouri  have  been  closed  against  the  free 
citizens  of  the  free  States  for  a  single  hour.  Every  man  who 
hears  me  knows  and  feels  this  to  be  true.  His  name  alone  would 
have  awed  the  fiercest  spirits  into  submission  to  the  majesty  of 
the  law. 


CUBA  AND  THE  OSTEND  MANIFESTO. 

I  spent  some  weeks  in  Cuba,  this  spring,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
health  of  a  near  relative,  who  required  the  change  to  a  milder 
climate.  Our  party,  none  of  whom  spoke  the  Spanish  language, 
after  staying  some  days  in  the  picturesque  City  of  Havana,  crossed 
to  the  south  side,  and  remained  for  some  time  on  one  of  the  finest 
sugar  plantations  in  the  island,  belonging  to  a  friend.  During 
our  whole  visit  we  found  the  authorities  of  the  island  very  friendly, 
and  particularly  attentive  to  Americans,  whilst  we  were  received 
and  treated  by  all  the  inhabitants  we  saw  in  the  course  of  our 
travels,  with  a  politeness,  kindness,  and  courtesy  peculiar  to  the 
Spanish  nation. 

I  am  unable,  therefore,  to  appreciate  the  morality  or  justice  of 


40 


taking  Cuba  by  force  if  Spain  -will  not  sell  it,  and  to  look  with 
coolness  on  the  devastation  and  ruin  which  must  await  this  de¬ 
lightful  island  and  its  inhabitants  if  invaded  by  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States. 

It  was  to  be  hoped  that  the  celebrated  Ostend  manifesto  would 
have  sunk  into  oblivion ;  but  as  it  has  been  made  one  of  the 
planks  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  by  language  which  will  be  in¬ 
terpreted  to  suit  the  occasion,  it  is  but  proper  and  right  to  ex¬ 
press  our  disapprobation  of  the  doctrines  and  principles  contained 
in  it. 

The  almost  fabulous  sum  which  has  been  offered  for  the  Island, 
could  be  much  better  applied  to  the  construction  of  the  great 
railroad  to  the  Pacific,  which  will  be  carried  through  Kansas  if 
free,  and  which  will  give  us  a  certain  and  swift  line  of  communi¬ 
cation  within  our  own  Territories  between  the  two  oceans  without 
embroiling  ourselves  with  foreign  nations. 

FREE  WHITE  LABOR. 

I  should  not  have  said  another  word  on  the  evils  of  slavery 
except  for  the  constant  and  unremitting  attacks  of  Southern  poli¬ 
ticians  and  of  the  Southern  press  supporting  the  Cincinnati  plat¬ 
form  and  its  nominees,  upon  the  free  w’hite  citizens  of  the  North, 
with  their  wives  and  families,  who  live  by  the  honest  labor  of 
their  own  hands. 

Slavery  is  declared  to  be  a  patriarchal  institution  necessary 
for  the  advancement  of  the  human  race,  and  that  it  includes  from 
necessity  both  whites  and  blacks.  “  The  South  maintains  that 
slavery  is  right,  natural,  and  necessary,  and  does  not  depend 
upon  difference  of  complexion.  The  laws  of  the  slave  States 
justify  the  holding  of  white  men  in  bondage.” — Richmond  Rn- 
quirer. 

Slavery  is  the  natural  and  normal  condition  of  the  laboring 
man,  whether  white  or  black.  The  great  evil  of  Northern  society 
is  that  it  is  burdened  with  a  servile  class  of  mechanics  and  la¬ 
borers,  unfit  for  self-government,  and  yet  clothed  with  the  attri¬ 
butes  and  powers  of  citizens.” 

‘‘We  have  got  to  hating  everything  with  the  prefix  free,  from 


41 


free  negroes  down  and  through  the  whole  catalogue ;  free  farms, 
free  labor,  free  society,  free  will,  free  thinking,  free  children, 
and  free  schools,  all  belonging  to  the  same  brood  of  damnable 
isms. — {South-Side  Democrat.) 

‘‘  Free  Society !  We  sicken  of  the  name.  What  is  it  but  a 
conglomeration  of  greasy  mechanics,  filthy  operatives,  small- 
fisted  farmers,  and  moon-struck  theorists.” — [Muscogee  Herald.) 

These  are  true  extracts  from  the  Southern  papers,  all  advocat¬ 
ing  the  Cincinnati  Platform,  and  exhibiting  the  real  views  of  the 
Southern  apostles,  who  are  wandering  through  our  State  to  teach 
the  people  of  Pennsylvania  to  prefer  Slavery  to  Freedom,  to  pre¬ 
fer  being  ‘‘  owned,”  instead  of  being  hired. 

In  the  Southern  States  there  are  upwards  of  three  millions  of 
people,  without  the  divine  institution  of  marriage,  who  have  nei¬ 
ther  wives,  husbands,  nor  children,  except  as  the  foal  follow'S  the 
mare.  All,  from  infancy  to  old  age,  without  distinction  of  sex, 
or  even  of  color  (for  the  shades  are  from  black  to  white),  are  lia¬ 
ble  to  whipping — cruel  and  immoderate  whipping — in  private  by 
their  masters,  provided,  it  does  not  affect  life  or  limb.  The  infant 
may  be  separated  from  its  mother,  and  sold  into  distant  slavery, 
at  the  will  or  caprice  of  the  master,  or  by  the  iron  hand  of  the 
law.  Three  millions  of  souls  in  a  Christian  land,  whether  slave 
or  free,  are  forbidden  to  learn  to  read  or  write,  and,  of  course, 
forbidden  to  read  the  Bible  ;  whilst  free  white  women  are  punished 
wdth  fine  and  imprisonment  for  doing  what,  on  the  coast  of  Africa, 
would  be  considered  the  chief  end  of  missionary  labor.  The  vices 
and  degradation  of  Slavery  need  no  enumeration  ;  and  their  effect 
on  the  white  races  has  been  graphically  portrayed  by  Colonel 
Mason,  of  Virginia.  “  Christians,”  says  a  Southern  Judge,  ‘‘how 
can  we  justify  it,  that  a  slave  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  read  the 
Bible?” 

In  the  South,  no  large  cities  call  for  free  white  mechanical  or 
other  labor,  and  the  interior  is  virtually  closed  to  all  free  white 
labor  by  the  wealthy  slave-owner,  who  employs  only  his  white 
overseers  and  his  black  slaves,  whether  in  the  labor  of  the  field, 
the  house,  the  shop,  and  even  in  the  manufactory. 

In  a  Southern  State  all  free  white  male  (and  in  some  places 
female)  inhabitants  are  liable  to  do  patrol  duty,  that  is,  to  watch 


42 


over  the  slaves  of  their  rich  neighbors,  and  they  are  called  out 
at  least  once  a  fortnight,  and  may  correct,  with  stripes,  all  slaves 
infringing  the  slave  regulations  in  the  slightest  particular. 

Does  any  free  white  man,  with  his  family  and  their  labor,  think 
of  going  to  South  Carolina,  the  headquarters  of  Southern  Slav¬ 
ery  ?  If  this  be  so,  why  should  such  a  system  be  tolerated  for  a 
moment  in  territory  now  free,  and  thus  exclude  the  native  Penn¬ 
sylvanian,  or  the  hardy  emigrant  from  Europe,  from  settling  in 
the  far  West.  The  introduction  of  Slavery  is  the  permanent  ex¬ 
clusion  of  white  freemen  and  free  white  labor. 

I  have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  paint  the  true  state  of 
society  in  the  North,  with  its  manifold  blessings,  for  they  are 
known  and  felt  by  all  of  us.  So  great  are  our  improvements, 
that  I  was  assured  by  a  gentleman,  intimately  acquainted  with 
both  the  North  and  the  South,  that  the  respectable  mechanics  of 
Philadelphia  had  better  accommodations,  and  enjoyed  in  fact  more 
real  comforts,  than  the  Georgia  planter  did  on  his  plantation. 

THE  LEHISLATURE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  IN  FAVOR  OF  FREEDOM. 

In  the  year  1819,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  one  of  a  committee 
who  reported  resolutions  to  a  meeting,  held  at  Lancaster,  re¬ 
questing  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  use  their  utmost 
endeavors  to  prevent  the  existence  of  slavery  in  any  of  the  Ter¬ 
ritories  or  States  which  may  be  erected  by  Congress.  In  the 
same  year  were  passed  unanimously  by  the  Legislature,  the  cele¬ 
brated  preamble  and  resolutions,  offered  by  Mr.  W.  J.  Duane, 
against  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  State.  They  were 
signed  by  Governor  Findlay,  and  spoke  the  sentiments  of  the 
whole  State. 

On  the  23d  January,  1829,  a  resolution  was  passed  unani¬ 
mously  in  the  Senate,  and  by  a  vote  of  81  to  8  in  the  House, 
“  That  the  Senators  of  this  State,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  be  and  they  are  hereby  instructed,  and  the  Bepresenta- 
tives  of  this  State  in  Congress  be  and  they  are  hereby  requested 
to  procure,  if  practicable,  the  passage  of  a  law  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  such  a  manner  as  they  may  con¬ 
sider  consistent  with  the  rights  of  individuals  and  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States.” 


43 


It  was  signed  by  the  present  Treasurer  of  the  Mint,  as  Speaker 
of  the  Senate,  and  approved  by  Governor  Shulze,  and  it  was 
voted  for  in  the  Senate  and  the  House  by  two  gentlemen  who 
were  afterwards  members  of  Governor  Shunk’s  Cabinet. 

On  the  22d  January,  1847,  a  resolution,  offered  by  a  Demo¬ 
cratic  member,  passed  the  House  unanimously  and  the  Senate 
with  only  three  dissentients,  requesting  our  Senators  and  Re¬ 
presentatives  to  vote  against  any  measure  by  which  territories 
may  accrue  to  the  Union,  unless,  as  part  of  the  fundamental  law 
upon  which  any  compact  or  treaty  for  this  purpose  is  based, 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  crime,  shall  be 
forever  prohibited.  This  met  the  approbation  of  Governor 
Shunk. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1847,  an  Act  was  passed  and  approved 
by  Governor  Shunk,  abolishing  the  last  remnant  of  slavery  within 
our  own  limits,  so  that  every  man,  except  a  fugitive  from  labor, 
upon  touching  the  soil  of  Pennsylvania  became  a  free  man. 

Mr.  Buchanan  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Democratic  citizens  of 
Reading,  at  their  celebration  on  the  4th  of  July,  1847,  recom¬ 
mending  the  Missouri  Compromise  Line. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1849,  a  resolution  w^as  passed  unanimously 
at  the  Democratic  State  Convention,  held  at  Pittsburg,  against 
the  extension  of  slavery  to  the  territories,  and  its  nominee  for 
Canal  Commissioner,  Mr.  Gamble,  wrote  a  letter  recognizing,  in 
the  strongest  terms,  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  territories,  and  the  propriety  of  doing  so.  Mr.  Gamble  was 
elected  by  a  large  majority. 


THE  PLATFORMS. 

Of  late  years  the  South  have  adopted  the  policy  of  nominat¬ 
ing  Northern  men  with  Southern  principles,  and  to  them  has 
virtually  been  given  the  privilege  of  selecting  the  candidate, 
and  announcing  the  principles  upon  which  his  administration  is 
to  be  conducted. 

Thus,  though  in  a  decided  minority,  by  always  acting  as  an 
united  force,  they  have  secured  to  themselves  the  whole  power 
of  shaping  the  policy  of  the  government. 


44 


The  South  itself,  against  its  will,  is  governed  by  a  small  body 
of  slaveholders,  who,  founding  their  power  upon  their  ownership 
of  human  beings,  are  constantly  engaged  in  plans  to  enlarge  the 
area  of  slavery  so  as  to  afford  a  larger  market  for  their  human 
chattels.  The  effect  of  this  is  to  place  the  government  in  the 
possession  of  a  privileged  class,  a  sort  of  slave  nobility,  and 
the  President  becomes  a  puppet  in  the  hands  of  irresponsible  and 
interested  advisers,  who  force  him  into  measures  which  his  better 
nature  would  shrink  from. 

As  their  policy  has  prospered  so  has  their  audacity  increased, 
until  at  last,  at  Cincinnati,  it  is  developed  in  a  form  which  will 
leave  little  more  to  be  done  in  favor  of  slavery  by  the  next  Con¬ 
vention,  which  meets  at  Charleston,  the  hot-bed  of  Southern  slave 
fanaticism. 

The  Cincinnati  Platform,  in  plain  words,  negatives  all  power 
in  Congress  over  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and,  as  a  corollary, 
refuses  it  to  the  people  of  the  Territory,  who  cannot  have  what 
Congress  has  not,  and  which,  of  course,  it  cannot  delegate  to 
another.  The  result  is  the  adoption  of  the  new-fangled  Southern 
theory,  spun  out  of  the  brains  of  men  who  profess  to  believe  slavery 
to  be  a  divine  institution,  intended  for  the  benefit  of  man  in  his 
most  progressive  state,  that  any  slaveholder  has  a  right  to  take 
his  slaves  into  any  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  hold  them  there  as  he  would  in  the  State  from  which  he  emi¬ 
grated.  The  effect  of  this  monstrous  doctrine  is  to  change  all 
the  territory  of  the  United  States,  whether  Oregon,  Washington, 
Minnesota,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  Kansas  or  Nebraska  into  slave 
territory. 

The  effect  of  this  would  be  to  surrender  842,119,040  acres  to 
to  347,225  slaveholders,  and  to  exclude  the  remaining  19,205,843 
free  white  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  from  all  enjoyment  of 
them,  or  any  participation  in  their  government,  and  finally  to  erect 
them  into  an  indefinite  number  of  slave  States. 

The  Convention  at  Charleston,  in  1860,  can  only  add  to  this 
degradation  of  free  white  men  and  free  white  labor,  and  the  entire 
prostration  of  free  speech  and  of  a  free  press;  the  re-establish- 
ment  of  the  African  slave  trade,  which  we  have  denounced  in  the 
face  of  the  civilized  world  as  a  crime  against  the  law  of  nature 


45 


and  abhorrent  to  humanity,  stigmatized  it  as  piracy,  and  punished 
it  with  death.  There  is,  however,  one  thing  further,  which  the 
slaveholders  have  already  practically  asserted,  and  which  may 
be  and  no  doubt  will  be,  inserted  in  the  Charleston  platform,  their 
inherent  right  to  carry  into  and  hold  their  slaves  in  the  free 
States  against  the  express  prohibitions  of  their  constitutions  and 
their  law’s. 

These  Southern  heresies  thus  publicly  announced  by  regular 
Conventions  of  the  party,  if  not  resisted  and  put  down  at  the 
outset,  not  only  enter  into  the  policy  of  the  Executive  Govern¬ 
ment,  but  finally  make  their  appearance  in  the  judicial  decisions 
of  the  country.  In  the  Southern  States,  where  all  the  judges 
are  slaveholders,  the  original  line  of  decision,  which  in  conformity 
with  the  common  law  was  always  in  favor  of  freedom  and  against 
slavery,  has  been  entirely  reversed,  and  the  contrary  rule  is  now 
firmly  established. 

These  dogmas  thus  made  law,  by  interested  and  prejudiced 
Courts,  are  finally  used  in  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  nation  as 
binding  authorities,  although  contrary  to  all  the  received  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Common  Law,  and  the  old  established  principles  of 
American  Liberty.  In  fine,  the  result  and  the  true  object  of  the 
Cincinnati  Platform  is  to  make  Kansas  a  slave  State. 

Upon  this  Pro-Slavery  Platform  stand  its  nominees,  James 
Buchanan  and  John  C.  Breckinridge,  the  latter  gentleman  agree¬ 
ing  in  opinion  and  feeling  with  all  its  doctrines,  and  the  first 
bound  to  carry  them  out  to  their  fullest  extent  by  his  unqualified 
acceptance  of  the  nomination  and  of  the  principles  upon  which  it 
was  made. 

Of  the  three  proposed  candidates  of  the  Democratic  party  I 
preferred  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  if  he  had  been  placed  before  the 
country  upon  principles  which  I  could  have  approved,  he  would 
undoubtedly  have  received  my  vote  at  the  ensuing  Presidential 
election. 

But  the  platform  on  which  he  stands  renders  it  impossible  for 
me  to  vote  for  him,  and  I  am  therefore  obliged  to  look  for  my 
candidate  in  some  other  quarter. 

I  have  carefully  studied  the  Republican  platform,  and  its  prin¬ 
ciples  meet  my  most  cordial  approbation.  I  disapprove  of  poly- 


46 


gamy  in  Utah  as  I  do  of  slavery  in  Kansas,  for  both  are  against 
the  natural  and  revealed  law,  the  one  in  allowing  a  man  to  have 
forty  wives,  and  the  other  in  not  permitting  him  to  have  any  at 
all.  I  am  against  seizing  Cuba  under  any  pretence  whatever, 
and  in  favor  of  devoting  the  money  intended  for  the  purchase  of 
a  slave  colony  and  a  slave  State  to  the  erection  of  the  great  Pa¬ 
cific  Railroad,  terminating  on  the  shores  of  the  western  ocean. 

I  am  in  favor  of  the  restoration  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
of  Kansas  being  a  free  territory  and  a  free  State ;  and  to  obtain 
all  these  great  objects,  I  have  no  other  option  left  than  to  vote 
for  John  Charles  Fremont  of  California,  and  William  L.  Dayton 
of  New  Jersey,  as  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States. 

Colonel  Fremont  is  in  the  prime  of  life  and  near  the  same  age 
as  General  Washington  was,  when  he  accepted  the  command  of 
the  American  armies  and  surprised  the  British  at  Trenton,  one 
of  his  most  brilliant  exploits. 

Colonel  Fremont  is  a  man  of  great  natural  sagacity,  and  pos¬ 
sesses  a  calm,  clear  judgment,  improved  by  study  and  a  large  ex¬ 
perience  of  human  nature  in  all  its  forms,  whether  of  savage  or 
civilized  life.  He  is  unassuming  in  his  manners,  with  a  striking 
personal  appearance  and  a  remarkably  fine  eye,  strongly  indi¬ 
cative  of  a  prominent  feature  in  his  character, — a  firm  and  vigo¬ 
rous  will. 

His  administration  will  bring  back  those  good  old  days  wUen 
the  incumbent  of  the  White  House  was  the  actual  President,  and 
governed  his  Cabinet  as  well  as  the  people  of  America. 

William  L.  Dayton  is  the  ablest  lawyer  of  his  native  State,  dis¬ 
tinguished  as  it  always  has  been  for  its  eminent  jurists,  and  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  was  conspicuous  for  his  talents, 
his  eloquence,  and  his  statesmanlike  views.  He  is  dignified  and 
courteous  in  his  bearing,  and  will  make  an  admirable  presiding 
officer  in  the  Senate  of  the  Union. 

What  then,  fellow-citizens,  are  we  to  do,  who  are  in  favor  of 
Free  Kansas  and  Free  Territory  and  Free  Labor  at  the  coming 
election  ? 

There  can  be  but  one  answer,  to  vote  for 

FREMONT  AND  DAYTON. 


W'K 

iijiNl  vA  fijiketJi  ar'irie^rb  .ofi't  fnifw’l  ni  t,®% 

■  ifi  oj  ftffi 

^  ijdir  J  IJm  i  _ 

“Jv  -'  h  odt  1p  WAVrtt  hm 

»vta  '^o  i/iU  u  ^Moo  -aT^lis  nr 

•9  gifhT  -v>t^5d8  0','  voi1««ittri‘»l  *t  i-'>tH4<Jl  oflb. 


hito«w?lt  adJ  la  nyiJMOtiioi.,o*D  ‘»o  nu/ol 

•  .  t  .1  ....  -  •.  ( *..;  ...  Jl  ...  £......  -n..!.  .l.u  .•  1.^  1  iJf  m.^aiifiA 


i 


-uUtfloi/il  j4tr)fe  j  >i#aH  0 


ol  And!  ni>r%o  t^nio  '^* v^dl  lla 

^  Iwrt!  in  4»U'>Vi  lo 


> 


^ft  )f»«ft  friUln  'niifiij  9tk  iV 

ol*;  riai^hft  ')d)  ^^h■^'U»»' 


’  .*•'«**•  ^  » 

yc'  »f.i*in)i  >^1  (lij  m  rmtm^  itiV(0tt4  U 

|[fujljtt?''^^  .<Ui,W  .*tv>itttHn4  t'll  ni  innn»i)^vn»  it  ytr 
^,:^.  ^TT  vffli  .  i'ibi« 

'j“  '  V.^-,  A-  ^uyomA  Hul  id  »<T*)jkj0i«  ti'*'  ^ 


W 


<‘U4h 


-i^  '  "i 

*  IfM.'li  ’  .  ■  '-  ',"' 'yjw'*' ■ ' 

^!>*d  tftx  t 

rt  -  ■  -.^.r  *..  AtT  'illdV/  ;ilB'io' t 


’jiiic  ' J^wfi^p^i^i-r^i/,?-'.'.'  ‘iildV/  ^ijfi'.lcf' . 

...;  '“  '  .v^ibnmA  1ool^t-'^(|"'.iM 
^^i4»  ‘la  ww'^'l 

lu  i^ai-u.kH  ^*V-  'sntu^>4 

(iij«iiil#4  J  1o  'nil'' 

Uiu  v»H  ^»i{ 

‘■-  K&-  ,  .41  mi^'  I  -^il  V  it4:'''«4#|r^?^  ^  t’lafta' 


lo  hoviiT  01  “^^<11  odft  i<>f>  0i  aw  oiii 

jia^iOu:)  i§i  *ri»rl#iJ  hufi  iitiiiKtH 


.m 

'■f-  U;  ^  ,  ' -■  t  '  1 

lol  Oloy-iSl  ,*raK?^Uj*  lad  ikI  *i&u*  inadT 


ymriM  o^/v 


